Professor ZZZ wrote:
“Neomi [Rao] is not only exceedingly well-qualified for the position [as Judge Kavanaugh’s successor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit],
she is also the daughter of Indian immigrants, of course a woman, a
constitutional law scholar, and Jewish.”
Once you get passed Professor ZZZ’s “exceedingly well-qualified for the
position” comment, I am not sure why I or anyone else should be interested in
(most, if not all of) these other characteristics—“constitutional law scholar”
excepted. I certainly see no societal gain giving a nominee a plus for being
Jewish. As far as I know, there is no shortage of my coreligionist’s being on
the bench or in the bar. I don’t want to be in the position of picking or
selecting or even favouring candidates based on their particular religion or
lack thereof. And I don’t want my government doing that either. If the reason Professor
ZZZ mentions this particular part of the nominee’s biography is to offset the
claim that Trump is an antisemite, or associates with antisemites, or tacitly
supports antisemites, then (rightly or wrongly) this sort of argument strikes
me as extremely unlikely to convince those that harbour such beliefs.
Many of the people on this list think that the Constitution’s Natural
Born Citizen clause works an injustice against naturalized citizens. If that
moral intuition is sensible, then just maybe we should not distinguish children
of immigrants from others who were citizens at birth (e.g., children whose
parents were citizens, but not migrants), and from others—i.e., naturalized
citizens.
Finally, why is it interesting that the nominee is from Indian stock—unless
we have some meaningful way to distinguish different immigrant groups based on
ethnicity, nationality, etc.
Perhaps Professor ZZZ meant, just perhaps, that children of immigrants
overcome difficulties that others do not have to contend with—so that such a
characteristic is an indicia of competence etc. I certainly have never seen
that case made out. Generally, I think there is a tendency to romanticize such
biographical information. I see no upside to this worldview, and there may well
be a downside. Doing so may have a deleterious effect—sapping and undermining
confidence (among our least advantaged) that our institutions are selecting
people consistently, fairly, and based on merit. It strikes me that the
alternative is a social spoils system advantaging the connected, those
affiliated with socially approved group identities—including identities based
on immutable characteristics, and concomitantly disadvantaging those not in
favoured groups. The consequence: unnecessary and undesirable societal
divisiveness.
The game is not worth the candle.
Seth
Seth Barrett Tillman, Unnecessary and Undesirable Societal Divisiveness, New Reform Club (Nov. 14, 2018 2:14 AM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/11/unnecessary-and-undesirable-societal.html.
2 comments:
I am probably over my head here, having never read this site before but... I would say that we are now constantly judging people in the US for how many boxes they can check off. Indian descent (minority), female (protected group), Jewish (protected minority), etc.
It seems that hetero-normative white male has become a pejorative.
I don't like it one single bit but that is the new game.
Is this destructive? Yes, I would say so but people seem willing to go to the streets to scream and shout for their intersectional choice. And this brings votes which, after all, is the end result.
there you have it
e pluribus pluribum
the war of all against all
Post a Comment