Sotomayor and the Fundamentals of Diversity and Affirmative Action

by Jim Wallis 07-17-2009

The confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor this week again brings up the fundamental issues of diversity and affirmative action. Regardless of what we think of the good judge – I like her, and was honored to be at the White House for the announcement of the first Latina for the Supreme Court by the first African-American president, something that I actually did find very moving – it is worth reflecting theologically and politically on the issues involved.

The story of creation in Genesis provides a great depth of insight into the being and nature of God. In those first chapters of scripture we see that the image of God is best reflected not through sameness but through the breadth that exists within the grand diversity of creation. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the U.K., argues in his book, The Dignity of Difference, that the Tower of Babel stands as a warning against the hubris of humans who try to impose uniformity where God has created diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that God, while perfect in unity, is at the same time diverse as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated. The challenge diversity presents is not for the country to become colorblind but for us all to be able to recognize and celebrate our differences while maintaining the proposition our country was founded upon, that all are created equal. While all are equal, we are not all the same — and that is a very good thing.

This principle was affirmed in the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, when the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a strict quota system for admissions into medical school. But it was in the opinion of Justice Lewis Powell that another precedent was established. Justice Powell affirmed the role of well-designed affirmative action policies because of the benefits for society as a whole. Jeffery Toobin describes and quotes from the opinion as follows in his book The Nine:

…Powell justified affirmative action because of what it did for everyone, not just for its immediate beneficiaries. In his view, diversity — a buzzword that came into wide use only after Bakke -- helped all students of all races. “The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples,” Powell wrote, so “race or ethnic background may be deemed a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file.” … In the subsequent 25 years, Powell’s rationale had become the dominant intellectual justification for affirmative action — not as a handout to the downtrodden but as a net benefit to the society as a whole.

In the 2003 cases against the University of Michigan (Gratz vs. Bollinger) and the university’s law school (Grutter vs. Bolinger), the principle of taking race into consideration as one factor of admission to achieve the goal of diversity was again affirmed. In those cases, the law school’s affirmative action policy was considered to be set up in a way that promoted this principle while it was determined that the undergraduate system was not. Of special concern in the case was a brief signed by top retired military officers who argued that affirmative action programs in place for officer training was vital to the quality, effectiveness, and cohesiveness of our armed forces.

One of the great benefits of diversity is that whether in regards to life in general or the particulars of a court case, our background, life stories, and identities all afford us different perspectives and unique insights. A diverse class, officer training program, community, or Supreme Court is going to have a broader and deeper wealth of knowledge and experience to interpret the world around them or a plaintiff’s grievance. This is the value of empathy that the president laid out as one of his requirements for a judge. Empathy allows us to rightly consider our emotions in the process of making a decision and to view the facts within more than just one framework. David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, said it like this:

It is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason and not emotion because emotions are an inherent part of decision-making. Emotions are the processes we use to assign value to different possibilities. Emotions move us toward things and ideas that produce pleasure and away from things and ideas that produce pain. People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.

The belief that diversity is a goal worth pursuing because it is a benefit to all of us is not a conservative belief or a progressive belief, but a deeply held moral value and American proposition. As Brian McLaren wrote, this is not racism. It is from this foundation that our country has overcome the sins of slavery and legalized segregation — and it is from this foundation that our country will continue to make strides in overcoming racial inequality through the courts, legislation, and the transformation of society.

Categories: Diversity, Race

hammerud

Arthur, I see very little hope for the world this side of the return
of Christ, which prophetically seems to be moving ahead with speed.
Regardless of how "right" we make things thru democracy or any system,
human beings (including myself) are fallen beings because of sin and,
as Jesus pointed out, are "evil," which is why each of us needs to be
born again. Regardless of how "right" we make things short term, evil
manages to wiggle its way back into the mix. Our country, in my
opinion, is rapidly disintegrating morally and economically.
Discouraging. I try to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit and be
used by God in my interactions, but I don't see a bright future for
mankind apart from the Second Coming.

arthurpena

Nonkimono,
Unfortunately, we are all trained to think "abstractly" about these issues, instead of "concretely". Every person in this society is coming from concrete and specific historical and socio-economic circumstances. Institutions have played a part in creating inequality, and they must play a part in correcting the wrongs. Slavery was an institution. To counteract centuries of destruction by that instution, instutional affirmative action must be applied. For example, where did all the capital produced by slave labor go? Was it returned to the "freed" slaves? Or did the social and economic relations remain essentially the same? "Freedom" and "justice" on paper are meaningless without concrete changes in social and economic relations. And the privileged class NEVER gives up their privileges until they are forced to do so.

I don't believe the Bible can be used to support or argue against any point of view because it is so self-contradictory--the "values" represented in the Bible range from outright conquest and genocide to "love your enemy". Having said that, there IS one clear thread in the Bible which speaks to social justice: over and over again, the rich are condemned, and the poor are vindicated. And over and over again, some form of violence is advocated or promised as part of God's plan to establish justice--sometimes human-on-human violence directed by God, and sometimes direct violence from God. My point is this: the Biblical witness includes (though is not limited to) a call to social justice which involves force/violence.

arthurpena

I think the hearings with Sotomayor were a kind of mild McCarthyism. She had to "tow the line", which in America, means a distinctly right-leaning line. Capitalism depends on abstract ideology. That is, it depends on people being more concerned with "abstract" justice than with how class and other real, concrete divisions in society influence the actual interpretation and application of "justice". It matters who we are. No two judges will always judge the same way because they are not the same people. I personally think she meant what the rightwingers think she meant (by her original "wise latina" remarks. And I think she was right. Too bad she had to "recant".

Palosaari

Aaaa- you're putting me on the spot! :-)

You mean, of nonviolent action at work? There are many, besides the obvious of Ghandi and MLK. They just don't get the press because they aren't as sexy. I'd recommend Christian Peacemaking: From Heritage to Hope by Daniel L. Buttry for a really great overview of some of the many ways that peacemaking has worked. But it isn't something so simple as marching or having a sit in. It requires creativity, and courage, and most of all love. It can be just as dangerous if not more so as going into battle. And it calls us to give up our right to hate- something often that the liberal establishment gets wrong. We have to love those we're protesting against, to be truly effective in winning them over.

One example that comes to mind from, I think, Bangladesh, is soldiers advancing on a crowd to kill them. The older women stood in front of the crowd, and lifted up their skirts. This made the soldiers look away and step away, because in that society, looking on your mother's nakedness is a great shame. Obviously, it's an approach that wouldn't work in America. Every situation is different.

I also think of the daily nonviolent action practiced in Palestine. A blog I regularly keep up on that talks a lot about this is http://inpalestine.blogspot.com/

Personally, I think of Marx as more descriptive than prescriptive, and I think the big mistake of the USSR was trying to jump the stages. You need to go through them all, and just in the natural order of things, in Europe, and even here in the US, we are getting more and more socialist, going back to the foundations of our country through the development of social security.

I think the penchant for violence knows no political ideology.

Have you read Dedication and Leadership? A old book, but still good. An ex-Communist uses his methods that he learned and applies them to the Christian faith.

arthurpena

Hammerud,
Agreed: "power placed in the hands of the few needs to be limited for our protection." Hence the need for socialist-like checks on capitalist power.

Agreed: "When the law means nothing, society will disintegrate". But what is equally true: who we are as human beings will influence what kind of laws we create, how we interpret the laws, and how we enforce those laws. Straight men, unchallenged by gay men, would NEVER have created laws protecting gay men from discrimination, nor could they be relied on to interpret those laws in the most gay-friendly way possible, nor could they be trusted to enforce those laws with enthusiasm and vigor. White men, unchallenged by black power, would NEVER have desegrated the south, would never have interpreted the laws in the broadest way possible (they would have maintained "separate but equal" instead), and they would NEVER, absolutely NEVER, have ENFORCED the anti-segregation laws. Not until they were forced to.

There is no such thing as "abstract justice". It is ALWAYS situational, concrete, and specific. It is always--always--EMBODIED. And it matters WHICH BODY is meting it out. And it very much matters which socio-economic class happens to be ruling and thus determining the dominant ideology of the country.

How do we interpret "we the people"? It depends on WHO WE ARE. The white, slave-owning, landed classes of Revolutionary America (Jefferson, Washington, etc.) DEFINED it as....THEMSELVES! No one else could vote.

And the "original intent" of the founders DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is WHAT WE WANT NOW. Not "willy nilly". Not without sober consideration of what may, in certain circumstances, and on certain points, have been insight or wisdom on the part of the founding fathers. And, for that very reason, we want SOME conservative element to our government; we do not want precipitous or unprincipled change. But, yes, we probably DO need fundamental change, on many levels, and in many ways.

The "original intent" of "we the people" was NOT what we mean by it today. And it does not even matter what "they" intended. It matters what WE intend. Now.

Always, of course, constrained by principle, by consideration, by reason--which, politically, translates into "constrained by democracy", that is, constrained by each other.....

A slightly unrelated question: in your view, how much room is there for improving worldly life (addressing injustice, etc.) this side of the "return of Christ"?

(I may have ended up posting this twice--once via replying via email, and once directly. I'll figure this out yet....)

arthurpena

Jim,
I definitely agree with most of what you said. I only question your use of the Bible to support your views. Don't you think it only serves to create a kind of diversion, that is, a diversion away from direct discussion of the principles involved, and onto a discussion of "what the Bible REALLY says"? See what I mean?

For example, the same Genesis story could be used to justify hierarchical static order: each in his own place at its own time, as it were. It could also be used to justify separation: each species keeping to its own, "according to its seed". And, obviously, it can very easily be used to justify patriarchal social relations.

The Bible is so wide open to interpretation (and the very history of Christianity, not to mention the wide variety of interpretations evident on this blog, proves this beyond any reasonable doubt) that I really can't see any purpose in using it to "support" political or social points of view.

Talking about "what the Bible says" accomplishes nothing but diverting the discussion from what I would call more grounded, human, heart-to-heart exchanges. We "project" our worldviews onto the Bible, and then our pattern-seeking and self-justifying human minds go into overdrive as they seek to find evidence in the texts to justify those same worldviews. But it is the worldviews themselves which are determining our interpretation of the words, which are determining our selectivitiy as to which texts we give more weight, etc. etc.

Yes, we may read the Bible, and use it, prayerfully, as one avenue to better understanding God (no matter whether we think of it as "God's Word" or as "man's words about God"). But I think to discuss "what the Bible is REALLY saying" diverts us from a more fruitful task: that of meeting person to person, heart to heart, worldview to worldview.

For example, does the Bible support "diversity" or not? This I guarantee: some will say "yes", others will say "no". But any furthur discussion of what the Bible "really" says on this score would serve only to muddy the waters and divert our attention from what we really should be talking about: do I, do YOU, support diversity? And why....really....why?

That's what matters. Our interpretation of whether or not the Bible says "yes" or "no" to diversity FOLLOWS from whether we, ourselves, say "yes" or "no" to diversity.

True, the text itself, as we interact with it, may change our views on that (in EITHER direction!!!)--just as our interactin with ANYTHING and ANYONE in the world might change our views on ANYTHING. But, again, I would argue that it is we ourselves that play the determining role in that interaction.

Appeal to "what the holy spirit says" is the same diversionary dead end. People will claim different messages from that same spirit.

We need to talk to each other, person to person, and stop "projecting" the conversation onto what "such-an-such authority" has to say.

It should be, not, "what does the Bible (or the constitution, or Das Kapital) say", but rather: what do YOU say? what do I say?

Yes, written "authorities" can be useful sources of information, as starting points for discussions, for thinking about what WE really believe or think or want; as tools which help US form our own opinions. But as soon as they are taken as "authorities" with an "authoritative weight" that supersedes OUR OWN sensibilities...that they somehow are INDEPENDENT of OUR OWN interpretations and worldviews and value judgements, then that's when they cease to be useful, and instead become obstacles to understanding.

arthurpena

Not to put you on the spot, but could you give some concrete examples of what you are advocating? Some examples of the results you mention?

I'm interested, because, as a Marxist, I believe in what is called "working-class democracy", which can only come once "capitalist democracy" has been eradicated. I am under no illusion about the way in which world capitalism responds to any attempt to seriously challenge its oppressive strangle-hold on people: it always sends in the Marines (the death squads, the Red Army, the water hoses, the dogs, etc. etc.).

I am very much interested in bringing this revolution about through means that are as non-violent and spiritually life-supporting as possible. An organized working class has the potential to bring about non-violent change, simply by virtue of its size and its ability to control the flow of profits (and to shut down the system through striking). But any other ideas--either as alternative or as complement--would be very welcome as well.

arthurpena

Do you think anything positive was achieved by the American Revolution?

I don't mean to ask a "leading question", so here's where I'm going with this: very few people would like kings to still be in power, or for economies to still reflect feudal relations. Similarly, very few would want slave economies to still be in operation. And yet, how did these economic systems end? Revolution. Every time.

Most Americans shy away from the world "revolution", partly because they think their revolution established a true democracy, and so revolution is no longer necessary. But I would argue this: the American revolution was a capitalist revolution: it was lead by a slave-owning landed class. In fact, that same class turned on the working class after the revolution in numerous ways (in one instance sending in the army to put down a workin class revolt). The "demos" of our democracy was the capitalist class. And it still is. Every gain in exanding the formal, political definition of that demos (i.e. every gain in expanding the right to vote) was hard-won by the disenfranchised themselves, and only grudgingly given by "the system". But the basic disenfranchisement of the capitalist democracy itelf hasn't shifted: the working class is still virtually powerless, while the capitalist class wields all the economic power, and therefore almost all the political power. We are exactly what we were in 1776: a capitalist democracy, not a working-class democracy. The reins of power are firmly in the same class that led the revolution. As a Marxist, I believe that the next revolution needs to be a working-class revolution, and that a new set of socio-economic relations need to be established to consolidate the economic and political power of the working class, that is, of the vast majority of the people (as opposed to the tine elite which rules now).

A working-class revolution, however, could be different from previous ones in that the working class is actually the vast majority of people, who have at their fingertips the life blood of the economy. "Force of arms" would not be the primary force. The Russian revolution (not the bloodly capitalist backed counter-revolution), for example, was virtually bloodless because of the power of the majority of working folk to bring the economy to a standstill, take political power, and re-organize society. The capitalist ruling class really is powerless before an organized working class.

Anyway, my question to you is this: do you believe in any role for revolution at all? Or are you thoroughly "other-worldly", in the sense of "my kingdom is not of this world"? And these last two questions are not "leading ones". They are invitations to share your thoughts on the matter, since I myself, in my heart, if not in my political rhetoric, waver between them...

One last thought. While I don't believe the Bible can rationally be used to prove anything at all (since its witness is so self-contradictory, including as it does everything from God-directed genocide to divine self-sacrifice on the cross), I have an observation about the Biblical witness regarding the poor and economic justice: it is almost always accompanied by threats of violence. Yes, it is always God's vengeance that is to be accomplished, but even there, it is often his human instruments which are portrayed as accomplishing his ends.

And so my observation, or question is this: to what extent could this "threat of violence" be viewed as a very human desire for justice projected onto the hope of salvation from without (from God)? The Bible was written under conditions of extreme class oppression. The power of the rich was obvious, and (unlike today) there was no class with the power to challenge the ruling class. What else could they do but project their desire for deliverance and their desire for vengeance onto the hope for a deliverer that would come from beyond their world? Can we, should we, today, still hope for such a deliverer? Should we leave justice up to God, or should we try to be sons of God ourselves and establish justice ourselves?

Perhaps, in a nutshell, the question is this: is justice ever worth fighting for?

hammerud

Arthur - Changes that need to occur in society should not be put in
the hands of Supreme Court Judges who are willing to make judgments
unconstrained by the law. When the law means nothing, a society will
disintegrate. Human beings under any system have fallen, sinful
natures; and apart from the return of Christ, Who will rule this
world, there will always be inequality and selfishness. That is the
way it is with us humans. In the meantime, power placed in the hands
of a few needs to be limited for our protection.

arthurpena

hammerud,
Imagine we have a group of 100 people, some green, some blue. The blues have subjugated the greens for 3 centuries. In fact, the greens were their slaves. Then there's a war, and the greens are "set free". On paper. But the social and economic relations remain the same. The blues still have their "clubs" where deals are made. The blues still have all the money and the clout with the banks. The blues still have a history of being educated, whereas none of the greens have yet gone to school. The family structure of the blues had never been systematically destroyed and brutalized, nor their women systematically raped, their men lynched.

This was the situation after the civil war. The slaves had been "set free" on paper only. In fact, the situation was far worse for the blacks than for the "greens", for there was the state terrorism of the KKK as well, and the segregation laws, etc. And that was only 150 years ago--almost within living memory of a single (very old) person. And minimal civil rights progress was made only 40 years ago--within our lifetimes. Not even a single generation has passed since blacks were given the right--ON PAPER--to live lives free of segregation. Never mind the REAL segregation built into the social and economic fabric of the country. Yes, we have an "African-American" president. But...do we? Really? Since when does an "African-American" have a white mother, and get raised by the white side of his family? And his black roots were African--not African American. He has no slave ancestors--no historical baggage. And, of course, he is light-skinned. Yes, he represents progress. But it is a kind of progress that our system is expert at: symbolic progress, without substantial change. Without substantial change, that is, until the pressure from the grassroots grows strong enough to force real substantive change.

You cannot transform society "abstractly"--through laws on paper. It takes socio-economic transformation. It takes affirmative action to counter all the negative policies that had robbed an entire people of the wealth they created. For example, why should the white ruling class have been allowed to keep its wealth? There should have been reparations made. The white ruling class stole the money from the blacks. They should have given it back. Instead, the blacks were forced to struggle for every single bit of justice they managed to squeeze out of the stingy, racist system.

There simply can not be "colorblind" justice in a racist society. There are, in fact, conflict of interests in our society--especially class conflict, which continues to fuel the racial conflict. Racism itself was a product of the southern slave system--the class system--it was the ideology that kept working class whites from joining with working class blacks and turning on the real enemy: the white ruling class.

The same thing is fueling the debate now: white firemen, and black firemen (who most definitely came off a playing field that WAS NOT level). The solution: a deeper and wider working-class solidarity, which realizes that they are not each other's enemy. The enemy is the class above them which benefits from their divisions. The firefighteres are fighting each other over jobs in an economy which depends on precisely this kind of competition among workers to keep wages down (and profit margins high). And the bosses make out like bandits. One has to be a kind of broken record to keep reminding people, but: let's not fight over crumbs in the midst of abundance.

As long as we are tied to "abstractions" like "colorblind justice"--abstractions which capitalism just loves to have people argue over--we will not face the socio-economic realities that keep us divided among ourselves, and keep us in virtual servitude to the capitalists.

WaveTossed

Amen! I just fairly recently became mobility-impaired. I have to use a motorized wheelchair for most of my traveling. It's amazing how many places are totally inaccessible to the mobility-impaired. I've had good experiences on the airlines (Delta and Northwest). However, there appears to be some sort of loophole in the ADA which means that taxis, inter-state buses, and most other private ground transportaion don't have to be wheelchair-accessible. This means limits to mobility-impaired travelers. I have found better accessiblity in Japan than I have found in the U.S. In Japan, they have wheelchair-accessible taxicabs.

And for those environmentalists who tell us "everyone should move into the cities." I have found public establishments and buildings in suburbs to be a lot more accessible than public establishments and buildings in cities. I've also seen wheelchair-bound people struggling to get around in the cities.

My church, which is in a city, in an old, historic building determined a few years ago: they would make our church completely wheelchair-accessible. They raised money and built an elevator and some ramps. This has been so helpful. Praise God!

yawbeth

Please don't forget people with disabilities in discussions of diversity. We are often forgotten, but face so much discrimination and lack of understanding. I like reading the articles here, but wish someone would write on disability as a subject.

Palosaari

I agree with most everything you said, Chad. In the original context, my statement says the mostly same thing. I appreciate you're bringing out the ways that diversity can be contrary to love, and I agree. Better perhaps to say that diversity is part of love, and if one removes the element of love from it, it's no longer a value.

There's certainly no call to some sort of ratio, but I do believe there is a greater call in Christianity to love the poor and oppressed, and our enemies, than to love other groups.

Diversity is not the only goal, but I do believe it to be a goal- diversity in gender, in culture, in ethnicity. I think because, if we have only one of these categories, as you say, we should question what's going on. That just doesn't represent the kingdom. And we should change our ways- although there are exceptions. A first generation church speaking only a foreign language. An area in the Midwest where there are only whites for the next hundred miles around. That kind of thing. But if we've got a monolithic church of only one gender or culture in a major American city, we should start to question that, as you say, and that should be a goal, to change that.

chadbowen

I think that there is one crucial problem with the theology of your post. You assert that, "There is *no* value with trumps that of diversity." There is no command in the Bible-- not even in the story of the good samaritan or in Genesis that we are to pursue diversity. FurtherI'm not sure that we can even deem diversity a "value" at all.

Loving everyonen IS necessary if we desire to live biblically, but actually pursuing diversity is to allow our values to be put out of whack. If ever we begin to pursue diversity, we lose sight of the people immediately beside us. We end up again with what happened in the story of the Good Samaritan, but for totally different reasons. Instead of the Levite and Priest passing by to protect their cleanliness, they pass by because they are called to diversity and the man on the road is the same nationality and religion as they, and if they stop to help they aren't pursuing the highest value of diversity!

We are called to love both our neighbors and our enemies-- for our daily lives the application is to love the people around us. We are also called to love the impoverished, the imprisoned, the least, the last and the lost people. If we've placed ourselves in an environment where we never encounter such people, then certainly we are not living as we are called to live, but there aren't any holy ratios that need to be maintained!

Certainly, if the Church is all white, or all black, or all rich, or all poor, or all anything, we should be stopping to ask why. Christ certainly died for all! If there is a marked absence of some group or other in the Church, then we as the Church must be failing to preach the gospel effectively in some manner.

In short, diversity is a natural effect caused by the participation in Christian love to which we are called. It is not the goal which we pursue. If there is no diversity, that is a symptom of a failure to love appropriately. If there is diversity, there is still no certainty that we are being the Church which Jesus intended.

WaveTossed

As for affirmative action: I have very mixed views. I am a White Lesbian woman. There was a time quite a few years ago when I was offered a job because I was a woman. The job was a "special" one reserved for women only, part of an "affirmative action" program. It was in electronics and it was thought that women were behind in electronics jobs. I had some electronics training, but not as much as the employees around me (who all happened to be White men). While I was there, I was in a conversation and responded to some prejudiced remarks about Gay/Lesbian people. I stated that I disagreed with the comments. However, I did not "come out" and reveal my own sexual orientation. There was no protection, much less "affirmative action" for Gay/Lesbian people in those days; it was perfectly legal to fire a person simply because of sexual orientation. Sometime soon after that, I was very much encouraged to resign from the job, which I did. To this day, I have no idea whether I was eased out of the job because of having been a woman or because of my having defended Gay people. I have no idea whether I ended up being replaced by a woman or by a man or whether the job was eliminated altogether.

In my current job (computer programming), we have people of all sorts of races, genders, nationalities, religions, disabilities, and sexual orientations. All of these categories are protected. When I was hired, I was interviewed by several people of varying races/genders etc. I was asked questions strictly about my technical expertise. And that was the basis I eventually was hired -- because of my qualifications rather than because of my gender. I much prefer to be judged by qualifications rather than because of gender or some other external factor.

On the other hand, I do know from my work in human/civil rights that prejudice and job discrimination still exist. People are not hired, not promoted; they are disciplined or dismissed because of underlying beliefs about race/nationality/religion/gender/sexual orientation/disability/age, etc. It is still true that most of the CEOs and higher-paid executives consist of able-bodied Straight White men. So I do believe that some sorts of affirmative action programs are still needed. I do not believe in strict quotas, where certain jobs are reserved for minorities because that just leads to further discrimination. But something must be done against institutional or explicit racism, sexism, homophobia, age-phobia, disability-phobia, prejudice against certain religions, etc.

The Supreme Court has consisted almost exclusively of White men (who either are Straight or else deeply closeted and passing as Straight), the vast majority who have been Protestant Christians. It has just been in the past few decades that there have been women, Blacks, Catholics, Jews. And now we have a Latina Supreme Court nominee. No openly Gay person has ever been nominated or confirmed for the Supreme Court and I doubt that anyone openly Gay (such as Barney Frank or Tammy Baldwin) would ever get into the nomination process no matter how qualified they might be.

So far I haven't seen anything to show that Sonia Sotomayor is anything but fully qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. Assuming that she is some sort of "affirmative-action" inferior nominee does not make any sense.

WaveTossed

"[Clarence Thomas is] quite sexist to boot"

Unforunately, there are some Black men who identify with male privilege rather than identify with their oppression as Black people. Thomas is not the only one of these by a long shot.

WaveTossed

"Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated."

I agree with this statement. I am so proud of my country when I go to church, or to work, or just traveling around: I see people of many races, nationalities, and colors. One thing I noticed on my previous trips to Japan was how alike (in looks at least) most of the people are. Nothing wrong with that; Japan is much more homogenous than we in the U.S. are. Though there is a myth about Japanese "homogenity", Japan isn't nearly as homgenous as it would seem to be. But that is another issue. Here in the U.S. we are openly heterogenous and that's a strong part of our culture.

JInAZ

Thank you so much for writing this. I feel the exact same way and you said it so eloquently.
I just found your sight and already feel like I am home! It is so hard to find other Christians who think like me and do not tell me that I am evil for my political beliefs.

BlueDeacon

Here's the problem affirmative action is trying to solve:

Say you want to get a job as a lawyer in a top law firm and it accepts graduates from only one law school which doesn't have any "students of color" because they're not "good enough" to get in "on their own." A situation like that can lead to an attitude of racism because it's based not on whether they might be a good fit but through the right channels. That's what affirmative action is really about -- putting folks in the pipeline so that they have the opportunity to compete. (It was less of an issue down South because plenty of African-Americans, who had developed their own educational culture, met the initial qualifications.)

ando

I think there is a huge difference if we're talking about a single mother, say in Ethiopia, whose husband has died of AIDS or malaria and is trying to raise children four children on the equivalence of 25 cents a day (true story), and a single mother in the US whose husband has ditched her for another woman and a second family (way too true here).