Monday, June 8, 2009

Identity Politics

There is a difference between diversity and multiculturism. The former perceives all as equal under law and the best qualified for the position gets the job. The latter forces culture for the sake of culture, not necessarily providing the best qualified for the position. We have been living with multiculturism. Sontemayor should be judged according to her qualifications for the position, not her background and sex.



They, MSM keep talking of her great "Story". Hell her story aint that exceptional, she was born in NY and she did well in school because of good study habits and a good strong Christian Mom.

You want to hear a good story of a tough road to how? Just Google Justice Thomas history. Now there is a real tough story. The Democrats tried to crush him they were brutal and cruel from the start. Senator Kennedy got on the Senate floor and started to bad mouth lies about him before his request for appointment was even official.

These examples of fear of the truth, and fear of any debate of the issues, rather that a fancy inflated life story, that doesn’t have a thing to do with the ISSUES needs to be out into the MSM. Exposure of this to a wider audience…and audiences of diversity, color and multicultural.

Yesterday the New York Times stated as fact that Sotomayor "benefited from affirmative action policies" at both Princeton and Yale. Today William Bowen, the president of Princeton during Sotomayor's undergraduate years, praises Sotomayor effusively and says that Sotomayor would have succeeded without affirmative action:

The whole purpose of affirmative-action programs isn’t to find the one-in-a-thousand Sonia Sotomayor, but to diversify campus communities and to identify people of promise who would do well, but who didn’t necessarily have all the qualities and characteristics that she had.

Mary Katharine wrote
MaryKatharine Ham's Notes

Yesterday the New York Times stated as fact that Sotomayor "benefited from affirmative action policies" at both Princeton and Yale. Today William Bowen, the president of Princeton during Sotomayor's undergraduate years, praises Sotomayor effusively and says that Sotomayor would have succeeded without affirmative action:

The whole purpose of affirmative-action programs isn’t to find the one-in-a-thousand Sonia Sotomayor, but to diversify campus communities and to identify people of promise who would do well, but who didn’t necessarily have all the qualities and characteristics that she had.

No one has done more to cast doubt on Sotomayor's intellectual firepower than the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, but Sotomayor's supporters -- most of whom support racial preferences -- insist that Sotomayor is so smart and capable she would have succeeded regardless of any affirmative action policies. And maybe she would have, but it's clear she never got the chance. Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is precisely the kind of outcome liberals were hoping for when they set up a system of preferences. And it is precisely the outcome Bowen was hoping for when he implemented a system of preferences. But now that that outcome has been achieved, liberals don't want to take any credit for their success. It's a very odd thing to see a social policy become orphaned at the moment of its greatest triumph.

No comments: