Appointing “qualified” women and minorities to the Supreme Court
CNN’s Roland Martin complains in his recent column about the use of “qualified” when discussing minority and female appointments to the Supreme Court, and hires for other positions. Why, he asks, “do we as a society feel the need to say it’s important to have “qualified” women or minorities?”
It’s always amazing when diversity is discussed that people feel the need to use the qualifier “qualified.” If you think about it, there never seems to be an assumption when white men are being discussed that they are unqualified. Their qualification is simply assumed and is inherent in their whiteness and maleness.
Martin dismisses affirmative action as the reason the qualifier “qualified” has come into use. But affirmative action — or at least how affirmative action is perceived — is precisely why it has come into use.
Think about the question that prompted the use of “qualified” that Martin objects to: “Should Obama feel obliged to appoint a qualified woman, African American or Hispanic to the Supreme Court? If so, why, and on what basis should he choose among these groups?”
The notion that any president should be choosing a Supreme Court appointee even partly on the basis of gender or race or anything besides qualifications is bound to raise questions about qualifications. Ah, Martin says, but of course the person the President appoints will be qualified. “Qualified” ought to be a given. But really, when someone says that the next Supreme Court justice ought to be from Group A — whether Group A consists only of women, whites, Latinos, whatever — they are clearly saying, do not find the most qualified person, but only the most qualified person that also belongs to Group A.
Now, if the most qualified person happens to belong to Group A, then the most qualified person gets the job. But if the second most qualified person belongs to Group A, and the most qualified person belongs to Group B — but the appointee has to come from Group A — then the new Supreme Court appointee is not the most qualified person.
If there are qualified persons in many different groups, one might agree that — leaving political ideology aside — it is likely that a president committed to appointing someone from a particular group would also be appointing someone qualified for the job. But this assumes that there are many qualified people out there, and that most and second most and fifth most qualified are not distinctions that can be made with judges.
But if we apply this to other fields, we can see why “qualified” would enter our minds. What if the Philadelphia Eagles, through law or because of NFL public relations pressure, had to be sure that their new quarterback was ethnically Chinese (American or otherwise)? What if the Eagles just came out and said, “We are going to hire a Chinese quarterback”?
Would it be racist to wonder just how many Chinese quarterbacks out there are qualified to play in the NFL? Given the social and cultural factors at work, we might assume that the pool of Chinese candidates is much, much smaller than the pool of white candidates, or black candidates, and the likelihood of finding a qualified candidate — of finding the most qualified candidate — is slim. That doesn’t mean the Eagles ought to stereotype and refuse to consider a Chinese quarterback (as used to happen with black quarterbacks). But if they specifically sought out a Chinese quarterback, were committed to it, they would probably not end up with the best quarterback. Since getting the most qualified quarterback matters and has real consequences, the Eagles would never do this.
If they did do it, the fans would be incensed. The Eagles would have to say that they were pursuing “qualified” Chinese candidates. But fans would know that this would still mean that the team was going to end up with a quarterback who isn’t good enough to start on an NFL team, because if he was good enough to start on an NFL team, an NFL team would be trying to hire him regardless of his ethnicity.
Now, to be fair, Supreme Court justices are not quarterbacks. My analogy has run out of steam. A quarterback’s performance is far easier to evaluate. With judges, politics muddles everything — it’s far more subjective than the debate over Montana versus Elway (at least there is no denying that both were great). Some of my readers and I might have very different ideas about what makes for a good judge. Still, if a thorough knowledge of the law is a basic requirement, there is reason to believe that there are qualified members of various groups. Martin’s point is understood here — the President might want to choose a woman for the Supreme Court, but of course he is going to choose a woman he believes is qualified (again, leaving aside politics and arguments about what makes for a good judge).
But in so many other fields, most people — of different races and genders — would never hire this way. If you need a plumber, mechanic, painter, carpenter, accountant, lawyer, do you often seek to hire people based on gender or ethnicity? Maybe you have old-fashioned notions about some fields or personal preferences (maybe some people would be surprised to have a female mechanic or wouldn’t want a member of the opposite gender as a doctor due to modesty). But generally, don’t you just want someone who does the best work at the best price?
If I said to you, the next plumber you hire must be a woman, or a white guy, or a black guy, or whatever, what reason would you have to believe that the plumber was the best, for the best price? The most you could hope for is that you found the best from that particular group, and that the group has members who are sufficiently expert in the field to have provided you with a highly qualified worker. Is that the case of all groups in all fields? Is that how the world really is?
Would any of us choose the brain surgeon who was going to operate on our child this way? “Your daughter has to have a tumor removed. You can hire the best Latino surgeon you can find.” Anyone, Latinos included, want to limit their options to a portion of the population when the stakes are high? Really? What if some black doctor had higher ratings, was preeminent in the field, with patients having a higher survival rate? When it really mattered, you would not settle for the best of Group A, whatever Group A might be, or whatever group you belonged to, if you had a choice. I think even Roland Martin would put on the blindfold for that.
Granted that these are not remotely precise analogies and judges are political appointments. But aren’t Supreme Court justices important? Shouldn’t the president find not merely a qualified candidate from a particular group, or even the most qualified candidate from a particular group, but the most qualified candidate available? If that happens to satisfy some feel-good diversity agenda, fine. If it doesn’t, fine. How many brilliant legal minds are really out there at one time? Isn’t there anyone, or just a few anyones, who stand out as the best the nation has to offer? Whatever groups they do or don’t belong to, that’s who should be nominated.
Martin concludes with a contradiction:
It’s simply time that when it comes to women or minorities, we should retire the use of word “qualified.” Every job, regardless of a group targeted, should be filled with a person with the right talents, smarts and energy to get the job done.
Hiring the best should automatically mean they are qualified. Period.
If you are targeting a group — any group — you are probably not hiring the best. For excellence to be a co-qualification along with belonging to some identity group invites the questions that Roland Martin objects to, because when you are determined to hire only a qualified person or even the most qualified person in a defined group, you are not likely to be hiring the most qualified person, period.
As for Martin’s main concern, why people use “qualified” as a qualifier, it is precisely because by requesting or mandating that an appointee come from some group, the focus is shifted to their membership in that group and away from their qualifications. People add “qualified” not to insult members of that group or to imply that they are not qualified, but to emphasize that though membership in a group is a requirement, the candidates will be qualified. No one adds “qualified” to white male candidates, because there is no one out there (that anyone takes seriously) that is arguing that the President should consider only white male candidates for the Supreme Court.
Tweet
Print This Post
If Obama supporters are comfortable with labels such as “female,” “Hispanic,” “African-American” and others when talking about the next Supreme Court nominee, how can they possibly object to the more objective label, “qualified”? Labels are labels. If you like using some, you better be prepared to use them all. The objection is simply absurd paranoia and simple-minded pettiness.
I read Martin’s article on CNN last night, and posted a comment (which of course magically wasn’t approved). But your post here is AWESOME. Martin’s idiocy is clearly revealed. I’ll be adding you to my reader feed!
It’s always interesting when people insert ‘affirmative action’ into a discussion as a ‘catch-all’ to quell any complaints of racial prejudice or bias! That being said, I think the black community has advanced enough to recognize a quick diversion when they see and hear it! When I can talk to some one (white) on the phone about a job and get as enthusiastic a response in person as that encounter with the same person on the phone, then we will be able to discount race a liability in determining whose qualified or not. In my 46 years ‘not sounding like I look’ has been something I’ve had to deal with all of my life, but my look (color) is not something that’s ever going to change! My qualifications speak for themselves and that’s why I am usually contacted in the first place.
Kenny137, who has inserted “‘affirmative action’ into a discussion as a ‘catch-all’ to quell any complaints of racial prejudice or bias!”?