You remember Anita Hill. She’s the person who opposed the nomination of a black man to the Supreme Court.
Now she opposes the nomination of John Roberts because he is not “diverse.”
Roberts, she acknowledges is not only “a highly regarded lawyer” but one “who is widely recognized within the Beltway as one of the country’s top appellate attorneys.” He brings to the table, she recognizes, “a lifetime of achievement.” Never in doubt, Hill writes:
One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.
Well, yes. I suppose being one of the nation’s top appellate attorneys is pretty narrow. Speaking of narrow, it would appear that Hill doesn’t like eminently qualified qualified conservative whites who are nominated, but neither does she like conservative blacks who are nominated. (Do you really think she would supported Janice Rogers Brown?)
Ms. Hill, you see, favors people who are “diverse,” which apparently means any and all who agree with her, and she doesn’t care a hill of beans for anyone else, of whatever hue or gender.
That was one of the most pathetic attempts to argue against the selection of John Roberts that I have seen. Throughout the article she constantly praises Roberts for his brilliance and his achievements. One would think that those were reasons to support him. However, one would be wrong. Those are the reasons that we should oppose him. After all, those are all white man
I read Ms. Hill’s comments in Newsday and sent her an e-mail. Here it is:
Dear Professor Hill:
I read with great interest your op-ed piece in Newsday regarding Judge John Roberts and must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Judge Roberts is a Catholic, a group that has long been stigmatized and discriminated against in the largely Protestant U.S.
Historically, extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan committed acts of violence and murder against Jews. It also targeted Catholics, ethnic whites and, of course, African Americans. Today, we have two Jews, three Catholics (four, if Judge Roberts is confirmed) and three Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the new makeup of the Court will have one woman and an African American who is also Catholic. If that isn’t an example of “diversity”, I don’t know what is.
In addition, I know it’s fashionable to say that the Court is mainly a “white male club”, but consider this: white males aren’t a monolith. Opportunity varies greatly by ethnicity and social class. Italian-Americans, for example, were lynched in the South from the 1880s-1930s. Their employment opportunities were severely limited and they were often greeted with “No Italians Needed” signs in the personnel offices of our major corporations. And the first African American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967) was appointed to the Court nearly twenty years before the first Italian-American (Antonin Scalia, 1986).
Is it intellectually dishonest to say that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks diversity? Given the facts listed above, the answer is clearly “yes.”
This is a very naked illustration of how prodiversity turns out to mean hatred against human merit. Would they publish a an antisemitic diatribe about how there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court? Somehow, though, a vicious piece of anticaucasianism is treated as morally and intellectually respectable. I predict that not one professor in the pay of the government will criticize this anticaucasianism.
“If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.”
I assume that by “equally qualified” she means along those same narrow and elite credentials. So no, they would NOT be overlooked.
One could “qualify” a ham sandwich for a Supreme Court position, if the qualifications were dumbed-down enough. The pro-AA crowd has made an art of rewriting qualifications in order to “qualify” diverse candidates.
Democrats/Howard Dean: We support women & minorites getting on the courts! No white men on the Supreme Court! THe GOP is the white man’s party!
GOP: How about Janice Rogers Brown (black woman)for the SupCt?
Dems/Dean: NO!!!!
GOP: How about Priscilla Owens (a woman)for SupCt?
Dems/Dean: NO!!!
GOP: How about Miguel Estrada (Hispanic)for the SupremeCt?
Dems/Dean: NO!!!
GOP: OK, you’re rejected all of them, we’ll pick John Roberts.
Dems: OK, he’s fine…but we Democrats REALLY wanted a female or minority for the Supreme Court. Too bad you Republicans are just the white man’s party.
So, what the group seems to be implying is that the only VALID minorities are those who agree with their positions on the issues?
How does this differ from Anita Hill’s writings, roundly criticized in this thread?
–Cobra
Somehow, though, a vicious piece of anticaucasianism is treated as morally and intellectually respectable. I predict that not one professor in the pay of the government will criticize this anticaucasianism.
How does this differ from Anita Hill’s writings, roundly criticized in this thread?
Because Hill is pretending that her complaint is about something else — diversity — rather than agreement with her views. If Bush had nominated Steven Reinhardt, she wouldn’t be complaining that he’s not “diverse.”