I just read this really great article in the NYT a few days ago comparing and contrasting Supreme Court justices/nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas in terms of their backgrounds and how that has shaped their legal opinions. Beyond being born to immigrants and growing up in impoverished areas, the two attended Catholic school, followed by elite undergraduate universities, and Yale law school.
Interestingly, both had first-hand experiences with affirmative action, yet differ tremendously in their opinion of it. Sotomayor sees it as a necessity: a way to bring those underrepresented to the political and social forefront. Thomas views the system as a handicap, due to the stigmas such minority students may receive. His argument is seen most clearly in a situation both he and Sotomayor experienced. During an interview with their first job, the two were asked (on separate occasions) if they believed that they were qualified to have attend Yale law school. Sotomayor and Thomas both did astoundingly well in their undergraduate institutions and were top-notch contenders.
That is where affirmative action may backfire; minorities who are qualified are viewed with skepticism and doubt, so that no matter how hard they work, no matter how intelligent and competent, they will always be seen as second best. I don’t disagree with Thomas, as this is a serious flaw in the system. I think that affirmative action is an incredible idea in theory, but at a certain point, it may do much more harm than good.Affirmative action was set up as a temporary measure; to change the binding constructs of society in order to level the playing field. The mechanism itself is intrinsically discriminatory, as it favors a select group of people over another. Therefore, keeping affirmative action active after the field levels itself, pushes the pendulum in the other direction – a racist reprisal of sorts. Thomas’ situation points out that there are varying degrees of aptitude in a given population, so that handicapping an entire group of people is inherently a flawed proposition, and can backfire in a serious way.
Sotomayor’s opinion is also legitimate. As a direct product of affirmative action policies, she believes that diversity in background is as essential to being a good lawyer as high test scores. Therefore, in her mind, race may be as important as other qualifications. It is an incredibly tricky situation; when should affirmative action be put on hold? Once a black man becomes president?
If anything, the policy itself has made it more difficult to assess when affirmative action should be done away with. The policy further stratifies the nation’s chosen minorities in terms of socioeconomic status and educational background and creates a situation where those upper-middle class minorities are at a significant advantage over whites of the same socioeconomic status, as well as disadvantaged minorities.
Whether you agree or disagree, school me
Related Posts:
Join us:
