Blogs and Stories
An Affirmative Action Pick
Getty Images
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Plus, more Daily Beast contributors react to Sotomayor's nomination.
Conservatives may abhor affirmative action, but they adore tokenism. So there is a certain elegance to the emerging right-wing argument that Sonia Sotomayor is “Obama’s Harriet Miers.” Its absurdity clarifies the key distinction between how Republicans and Democrats view gender and race.
Affirmative action, when properly practiced, means casting a wide net in search of highly qualified candidates—candidates who not only will excel in a job, but who can improve an institution through the unique perspective they bring to it. Tokenism, on the other hand, means reaching for the nearest woman or person of color around, regardless of his or her qualifications.
Barack Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor—a federal judge, former prosecutor, and lifelong scholar—is an example of affirmative action. Yet George W. Bush was practicing pure, unabashed tokenism when he made his ill-fated nomination of White House crony Harriet Miers to the highest court in the land.
If affirmative action, as a policy, is to survive into the 21st century, liberals should not be afraid to claim it and expand its definition. Yes, President Obama clearly considered race, ethnicity, class background, and gender in compiling his Supreme Court shortlist and settling on Sotomayor. But why shouldn’t he have?
In recent years, the court has rolled back decades of legal precedent protecting workers, consumers, and the environment from the caprices of corporations. It has devalued school integration and seems likely, this term, to overturn key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This is a court badly in need of the perspective of an individual who grew up poor, female, and Latina. All the better that, by any objective standard, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was among the 100 or so most qualified people in the United States for the job of Supreme Court justice. Could you ever have said the same thing about Harriet Miers?
Xtra Insight: More Daily Beast contributors react to Sotomayor's nomination.
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor at The American Prospect. Her writing has also appeared in Slate, BusinessWeek, and The New Republic.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Will We Abandon Haiti?
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
The Making of CBS's Pro-Life Ad
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
5 Questions for Bill Gates: The Daily Beast Interview
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
Limeridger
I guess that means that it is perfectly okay to select judges who are white male protestants with monied backgrounds because the history of accomplishments of monied white male protestants is unmatched by any other?? I don't think that is that what you're saying. The whole concept of affirmative action was not to bring diversity for the sake of diversity, but rather to educate those that had been systemically excluded as to how the system worked and what opportunities were available. Reaching for diversity solely for the sake of diversity undermines the whole concept of non-discrimination. Whether Sotomayor has the right stuff remains to examined.
TaterNYC
"The whole concept of affirmative action was not to bring diversity for the sake of diversity, but rather to educate those that had been systemically excluded as to how the system worked and what opportunities were available."
Actually the concept of affirmative action IS diversity for the sake of diversity.
Diversity is not just a noble goal, it is an imperative in a pluralistic, and democratic society. This is the author's point, and a valid one I believe. Affirmative action was and should be the counterbalance to prejudice and institutional roadblocks that thwart diversity. It really is that simple.
drkaza12
diversity isn't just a noble goal, it is an inherent part of nature to express itself in multiplicity; diversity.
bearperney
Actually, the predominant religion on the Supreme Court is Roman Catholic.
....just thought I would mention it.
mutterhals
Affirmative action is merely beneficent discrimination and it's just as troubling as the reverse. I am not saying that Sotameyer is not talented and capable, but her gender and ethnicity should not even factor in to the decision.
cbeenthere
The fact that she, yes, a Latina woman has been to attain this nomination, what, came about out of sheer luck, don't think so.
artois
Affirmative action is a policy designed to galvanize political power. No institution in the history of humanity has excelled because of diversity for its own sake. Sotomayor is a mediocre choice whether she supports affirmative action or not!
cbeenthere
Nothing in history? Take a look at New York City.
drkaza12
artois; your absolutely wrong for all the right reasons. every institution in the history of man has failed because of it's fear of diversity, it's false sense of entitlement, and vitriol for multiplicity.
and your definition; "Affirmative action is a policy designed to galvanize political power", is absolutely wrong. affirmative action is more than a policy, it is an intrinsic indwelling expression of the human condition and it must find context within our experience or our institutions wither. excellence can only express itself when it is in tangent with diversity, and where it isn't there is only failure.
artois
Both of you misread my comment - Show me a solitary example of ANY successful institution that has excelled BECAUSE it adopted the notion of diversity FOR DIVERSITY'S SAKE. Sotomayor is a mediocre jurist plagued by a modest intellect. She uses the chip on her shoulder to strip people of their Constitutional (and sometimes of their contractual) rights. She's a bad choice because she's a bad choice; not because she's a woman and not because she's a Boriqua (I certainly don't believe her physical appearance has any place in this debate and I was frankly quite shocked that its even being discussed.)
Your comment on aff. action is largely incomprehensible except for the part articulating that you think that I'm wrong and that aff. action is "more than a policy". Actually, you're wrong! Because whether you like it or not, affirmative action is ONLY a policy and no more! Well intentioned people may debate its merits, I for one thinks its usefulness is limited - see Sarastro's excellent comment below.
Sotomayor's job is NOT to find "indwelling expressions of the human condition" whatever that means... It is to call balls and strikes and she's shown on numerous occasions that she's been unable to do that.
RomeoHotel
drkaza12 said,
"every institution in the history of man has failed because of it's fear of diversity, it's false sense of entitlement, and vitriol for multiplicity."
Name some of those "institutions that failed because they feared diversity" -- particularly racial diversity, since that's what we're talking about.
"affirmative action is more than a policy, it is an intrinsic indwelling expression of the human condition and it must find context within our experience or our institutions wither. excellence can only express itself when it is in tangent with diversity, and where it isn't there is only failure."
Should the NBA practice affirmative action -- since it's an "indwelling expression of the human condition" without which the NBA will wither? Does the NBA -- or the U.S. Olympic sprinter teams or swim teams, which are always uniracial -- not understand that they cannot be "excellent except in tangent with diversity"?
joemac32
Your second assertion is pretty dubious artois. But your first is spot on:
"Affirmative action is a policy designed to galvanize political power."
cbeenthere
Institutes of HIGHER learning.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
drkaza12
I think that's what she said my friend; among the top 100 in the country. but consider this; john mccain at west point was something like 973, out of a class of 980, in his graduation class. also we're discussing something insinuated that occurred 30 some'od years ago as if it is fact. plus this is always an argument for those with marginal talent. those with true talent know their gifts can not be denied.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
mikesurfer310
All this shop talk and no one has yet to mention the elephant in the room. You know what I'm talking about How can a Supreme Court Justice get any respect with that hair? Maybe she was motivated to go into the justice racket to put her hairdresser behind bars. Waterboard that fishpoop.
BusyBeeLA
Looking at her record Sotomayor is not a good judge, period. Almost 83% of her cases have been overturned. As a half black, half hispanic woman, I am offended that we are paying more attention to her race and gender, than to her abilities. Affirmative Action hurts our country, by placing these types of issues above performance and aptitude. If minorities cared more about education, there would be no need for Affirmative Action. I can tell you from first hand experience that learning is just not a focus in South Central L.A. There are children in my nephew's school who can't even read yet, and they are in school everyday. Their parents don't give a d.a.m.n. I want an impartial judge, not an empathetic activists. Leave the activism for the community organizers.
srgonzo
If you'd like to take a look at diversity, why not look at a Federal prison? That's a diverse population if I'd ever seen one, and it's a population of people who have all been convicted of one crime or another (note that I didn't suggest they were actually guilty, just that they were convicted). Diversity in and of itself is meaningless. However, resistance to a natural state of diversity is disastrous. The fact is, we're a diverse nation. Our current president is a reflection of that fact, but I don't think anyone rational would suggest he's an affirmative action selection.
Ms. Sotomayor is an accomplished legal professional. While it's great that she had a number of opportunities which might not have been afforded to her parents, it was on her to take advantage of those opportunities which her contemporaries didn't.
RomeoHotel
Obama wasn't an affirmative action hire? You mean THIS guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsayanythingblo g%2Ecom%2Freaders%2Fentry%2Freport%5Fteleprompter%5Fbroker%5Fduring%5Fpalin %5Fspeech%2F&feature=player_embedded
Obama was everything that John Edwards was not -- except for more articulate, more experienced, and better looking.
And he wasn't an affirmative action hire? No, seriously.
AllieWags
You seem like such a sweet face. It's your bio that gives you away. I don't read the New Republic for a reason and therefore have no interest in reading your article or hearing your opinions. Thanks.
penscott
Among the top 100? That greatly exaggerates her credentials.
Think about it this way: would anyone even think of her for the Supreme Court if she were not a Latina? Certainly not!!!
politico83
Is one of the best 100 good enough (even if it is true)? I would say the greatest good would be served by picking whoever is the most qualified jurist regardless of gender and race, which is almost certainly not Sotomayor who, from what I can tell, is exceptional more for her background then her time as a judge.
What is ironic about picks like this is that the supreme court has time and time again weakened affirmative action laws as unfair and discriminatory. Her story is not really that unique. Over 30% of children are in single parent households and in many large states minorities are now the majority. Yes she went to Yale and did well, but so did a lot of other members of the legal community (over 2000 a year graduate from top tier Ivy League Law Schools). Is a hard luck story or skin color really a good reason to give a lifetime appointment to the second most important job in the country (after the presidency)?
I would also contend that doors were most likely open to her in the 70s because of her race not in spite of it. With the gigantic eminently qualified pool of applicants to the top schools it never hurts to check the latino box. In some ways, as compensation, those who can be affirmative action picks have it easier not harder.
For those who are right now taking offense, ask yourself this. After reading her opinions (which have been good but in no way exceptional from what I've seen) does anyone honestly think if her name was Louis Soto the white male justice with a hard luck socioeconomic story she would even be in the running? As far as I can tell her primary ability seems to be taking weak limited positions on every controversial issue sent her way except, surprise, affirmative action.
If anyone deserves it it isn't her, its Carlos Moreno of the California supreme court for having the guts to stand up for the rights of all Americans finding in favor of gay marriage twice (once last year and once in dissenting on the prop 8 decision). Gutsy judges like that who will take stands on fundamental rights are what we need, not middle of the road justices who are afforded exceptional treatment based on where they come from not who they are.
PamT726
Now that you have thoroughly looked into and read the mind of our affirmative action President, what next? If President Obama would have chosen a WASP, none of these questions or concerns would ever surfaced. People who "make" it in life without the benefit of a silver spoon are not less qualified for anything. Conversely, folks who "make" it with the benefit of a silver spoon are not more qualified for anything. I doubt that anyone looked at our former C-student this deeply, and his behind managed to become president of the USA. As an African-American, I am elated to see a Latina on the courts. Although we still don't have an African-American there (no, Clarence is a token and a bad one at that) at least the courts will begin to look like the face of America with QUALIFIED folks. Where's Thurgood when you need him?
RomeoHotel
I'm not appalled by the Sotomayor nomination because she's a Latina.
I'm appalled by the Sotomayor nomination because of her demonstrated racism against white men.
Are there any Democrats with the courage and honesty to admit that, if confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first avowedly racist justice on the Supreme Court in more than a century?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.