THE diversity crowd doesn’t really believe in diversity. In fact, what it’s really aiming for is conformity of opinion.
This crowd expects that members of racial and ethnic groups will adhere to liberal orthodoxy, and woe to those who don’t fall into line. If Judge Sonia Sotomayor were a conservative or the nominee of a Republican president, we’d be hearing that she wasn’t an “authentic” Latina at all.
I recall similar arguments used by my critics when I was the first Latina nominated to a US Cabinet back in 2001. You’re only celebrated as the “first” by the diversity crowd when you’re the first Democrat. Just ask Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Spencer Abraham, Elaine Chao, Bobby Jindal or Michael Steele.
As someone whose profession entails having opinions, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by how often I’ve been asked what I think about Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. What is surprising, however, is that many of those asking the question seemed less interested in my analysis of the judge’s judicial record than in whether I felt any special pride in her appointment because of our shared ethnicity.
I could see puzzlement as I recounted some of Sotomayor’s rulings. I was clearly missing their point: She’s an Hispanic woman; I’m an Hispanic woman. We both grew up in disadvantaged circumstances but managed to overcome our humble beginnings. We must be simpatico, right? Wrong.
Apparently it comes as a surprise to some people, but not all Hispanics (or women) think alike. Why should race, ethnicity, gender or even class determine one’s point of view on political or legal issues? What’s more, when it comes to Hispanics, there is often not even a single, shared culture that might create a common bond.
As LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez recently pointed out, most of the people described as Hispanics (he prefers the term Latinos) don’t identify with the catch-all term, but think of themselves in terms of their national origin.
But for most Hispanics born in the US, our primary identity is as Americans. In the largest poll of its kind in 2002, nearly 60 percent of third-generation Hispanics used the term “American” as either the only or first term to describe themselves.
Still, the media and most politicians seem to think Sotomayor’s ethnic heritage and gender are relevant to the story of her nomination. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before an Hispanic reached the court. True barriers — meaning disqualifications based on race, ethnicity or gender — simply don’t exist anymore.
Most ordinary Americans seem to have caught on to this phenomenon faster than elites, which may be why they are becoming increasingly skeptical of the idea that we need government policies to enforce “diversity.” A new Quinnipiac University poll taken after the Sotomayor nomination shows that 70 percent of Americans are opposed to granting preferences to minorities or women in hiring in order to promote diversity.
Even members of some of the groups granted such treatment seem unenthusiastic about it. Hispanics, for example, overwhelmingly oppose preferential treatment in government hiring in order to promote diversity, 58 to 38 percent. But they split more evenly when the question is phrased in the more nebulous terms of “affirmative action” in hiring, promotions or college admissions, with 48 percent opposing and 47 percent favoring affirmative action for Hispanics.
So, back to Sotomayor’s nomination and my reaction to it. I doubt that those clamoring for more diversity on the court would be thrilled if the nominee were an Hispanic (or Asian or black or Muslim or gay) woman whose views were closer to Justice Antonin Scalia’s than Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s. I don’t remember many diversity devotees cheering Clarence Thomas’ appointment — even though his story trumps Sotomayor’s in the overcoming-hardship category.
The next time someone asks me what I think about the Sotomayor pick, I’ll say: It’s not about a black president picking an Hispanic woman to replace a white man on the court. It’s about a liberal president choosing a liberal jurist to replace a retiring liberal justice. It’s not diversity; it’s more of the same.