Ivy has become the operative descriptor for the Supreme Court. Consider the academic biography of each Justice post Elena Kagan’s confirmation. (Each justice will have graduated from either Yale or Harvard). While diversity lingers on a superficial surface, ivy beckons. Not that an over priced ivy league education is inconsequential. But too much of a presumed good thing is almost, certainly, not good.
Washington Post writers Sarah Kaufman and Dan Zak, turn to the past for answers.
In the current climate, diversity of one kind (gender, racial or ethnic) seems to outweigh diversity of another (economic, geographic or experience outside the law). Gone are the days when a Supreme Court justice could be plucked from outside the East Coast, Ivy-centric ranks. In the ’20s and ’30s, Warren E. Burger combined a day job at an insurance agency with night school at St. Paul College of Law in Minnesota and went on to become chief justice. Sandra Day O’Connor was born, raised and educated west of the Mississippi. She grew up on an Arizona cattle ranch without electricity or running water, graduated from Stanford Law School and became the first female justice in 1981.
And lets not forget the Harriet Miers debacle in 2005. Miers, a graduate of Southern Methodist University, and a George W. Bush nominee, was lambasted as unqualified, and ridiculed for lacking the expectant credentials. The uproar over her nomination derives from a narrow perception, held by those who value exclusivity.
This perception is limiting in nature. It rejects outright all institutions not aligned with the ethos of a select few. What results instead is a mirage that purports to be diversity. This illusion is achievable when other factors become the sole ingredient for what constitutes diversity. Gender and ethnicity for example, often trump educational background. But their must be a consistent equilibrium in the nominating process. Constructing an image of apparent diversity, which fulfills visible requirements, and is often judged by the naked eye, is incomplete. Presumed diversity is an abstract concept promoted to satisfy the majority class’ yearning for representation. But it’s merely that, a concept, devoid of the true essence of the American experience.
As Americans we want our government and Supreme Court to mirror us. We want to see our reflection in the upper echelons of American power. A government for the people, and certainly, by the people. I am in no shape or form discounting the unique talents and experiences of each Justice. Quite the contrary. In fact, Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination was a triumph for all Americans. But the broader picture must also be considered.
More Americans attend public universities than private ones. Why not have those Americans on the Supreme Court? Politicians often praise the academic achievement of public universities when advocating for their funding. What better way to affirm the validity of public education than to appoint graduates of such institutions to important posts. Actions speak louder than words.
Sadly, Americans are divided along many lines. Race, ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation, social status and educational background. President Obama missed an opportunity here. By nominating someone with the same academic background as the other justices, he has assured representation of some, but not all.
Source: Washington Post.
One Comment
I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court is setting itself up for a legal challenge, as to whether or not 1) their opinions are in fact biased due to their common Ivy League education, and 2) they are engaging in discrimination, by limiting the Court to Ivy League Graduates.
The following applies to Kagan, just as it did to Sotomajor.
This editorial was created by 160 Associated Press readers under a Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution License 3.0 using MixedInk’s collaborative writing tool. For more about how it was created, see here. It can be republished only if accompanied by this note.
Obamas Appointment of Sotomayor Fails to Offer Educational Diversity to Court.
Sotomayor does not offer true diversity to our Supreme Court. The potential power of Sotomayor’s diversity as a Latina Woman, from a disadvantaged background, loses its strength because her Yale Law degree does not offer educational diversity to the current mix of sitting Judges. Once she walked through the Gates of Princeton and then Yale Law School she became educated by the same Professors that have educated the majority of our current Supreme Court Justices, and our Presidents.
Diversity in education is extremely important. We need to look for diversity in our ideas, and if our leaders are from the same educational background, they lose the original power of their ethnic and gender diversity. The ethnic and gender diversity many of our current leaders possess no longer brings a plethora of new ideas, only the same perspective they learned from their common Ivy League education. One example of the common education problem is that Yale has been heavily influenced by a former lecturer at Yale, Judge Frank, who developed the philosophy of Legal Realism. Frank argued that Judges should not only look at the original intent of the Constitution, but they should also bring in outside influences, including their own experiences in order to determine the law. This negative interpretation has influenced both Conservatives and Liberals graduating from Yale. It has been said that Legal Realism has infested Yale Law School and turned lawyers into political activists.
A generation of appointees with either a Harvard or Yale background, has the potential to distort the proper interpretation of our Constitution. America needs to decentralize the power structure away from the Ivy League educated individual and gain from the knowledgeable and diverse perspectives that people from other institutions can provide. We should appoint Supreme Court Justices educated from amongst a wider group of Americas Universities.
Harvard -
Chief Justice John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Harvard, Columbia)
Yale
Samuel Alito – Yale JD 1975
David Souter
Clarence Thomas – Yale JD 1974
Sonia Sotomayor – Yale JD 1979
Northwestern Law School.
Justice John Paul Stevens
The Presidents we have elected for the last twenty years, have themselves been Harvard or Yale educated. This has the potential to create an even more closed minded interpretation of our laws.
Yale – Bush Sr. – 4 years
Yale Law – Clinton – 8 years
Yale – Bush, Jr. – 8 Years
Harvard Law – Obama – 4 – 8 years
When we consider that our Nation has potentially twenty – eight years of Presidential influece from these two Universities, as Americans, we should look long and hard at the influence Yale and Harvard have exerted on our nation’s policies. Barack Obama promised America Change, but he has continued the same discriminatory policy by appointing a Yale graduate over many qualified candidates that graduated from other top Colleges and Universities in America.
Post a Comment