Scott Simon's essays on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, took on judicial diversity in a way I thought to be rational. He is right that there is nothing wrong with Ivy League justices, if we're going to argue that the pursuit of education is a good thing. Nonetheless, there is also nothing wrong with the thousands of qualified individuals who graduate from not only non-Ivy League law schools, and even 4th tier law schools. The truth of the matter is we need more than racial and gender diversity on the Supreme Court. We need racial and gender diversity, which still does not much exist, but we need more.
As stated by Simon:
"Eight of the justices on the court today are from Ivy League law
schools. Some people believe that nominating a justice who got a great
legal education and trial experience in the west or south might enliven
discussion on a court where Harvard and Yale predominate. Five of the
justices are from the northeast, and only one is from the south, which
hardly reflects where people live in America today. Placing an avowed
atheist, an active evangelical, an open gay or a former public defender
might be a bolder step to express America than the usual categories by
which we have come to keep score of diversity. America has become so
gloriously varied, the old categories may feel a little narrow now.
And, they'll only change."
The emphasis on college/law school attended in a persons bio. beyond like age 30ish seems strange to me. Once someone has significant professional record of performance to stand-on why should anyone care about issues that are related to an ACT score someone got when she was 16 and an LSAT score he got when he was 20?
Posted by: Peter Olson | May 01, 2010 at 01:03 PM