See my post directly above yours for my thoughts on DEI. Basically I think it’s good for companies and the like to not be run solely by old white guys, so in that regard there’s a place for considering diversity that can absolutely help bring fresh perspectives.
But any time you deal with affirmative action or similar, there is also the risk that you start being too prejudiced in your hires and start passing up the best candidates.
Generally the companies I have worked for have thought about diversity in ways that I find are helpful. But Joe Biden announcing to the world that he was going to hire a black woman to the Supreme Court (or VP) is absurd and significantly undermined the credibility of both women. Even though both of them were actually perfectly qualified to just be chosen based on merit and not their race/gender.
Does that answer your question?
In no universe does that announcement "undermine" the "credibility" of Kamala or Ketanji Brown Jackson. It only does that for people who see successful and intelligent black women as the exception, rather than the norm. Let's use some examples:
1. It is well-known that Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity. As Reagan's WH counsel -- who was there when the selection was made and who is no friend of liberals -- wrote:
"In the course of our discussion with Reagan the first time we were talking about the candidates … we had talked about Scalia.
Reagan had asked me whether Scalia was of Italian extraction. I think he used the word ‘extraction,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he’s of Italian extraction.’ Reagan said, ‘That’s the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him.’ We brought Scalia in… . The president met Scalia, and he offered Scalia the job right on the spot, in about 15 minutes, very little ceremony here. Scalia accepted on the spot. He was delighted. That was it… .
“
I think [Reagan] felt that it would be great to put an Italian American on the Supreme Court. He had all the usual American instincts: ‘We don’t have an Italian American on the court, so we ought to have one.’ "
Does this undermine Scalia's credibility? Reagan didn't publicly announce it, but it is now part of the public record. Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity as a white man.
2. It is also well-known that Brennan was appointed because he was a Catholic.
The president's advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic
Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a
Republican. Cardinal
Francis Spellman had asked Eisenhower to appoint a Catholic to the court. Brennan was one of two candidates who met Eisenhower's three criteria: experience on lower courts; relative youth and good health; and a Catholic.
3. Of course, we all know that Clarence Thomas was appointed because he was black. It was probably the most cynical appointment in American history. Bush wanted to replace Marshall with a black man -- I guess he wanted there to be a "black seat" on the court? So he chose the black man least like Marshall, who also happened to be one of the least qualified people ever appointed to the Court.
I've never heard a conservative refer to Clarence Thomas as a DEI hire. Hmm.
4. So anyway, I guess that the Court's credibility survived these blatant affirmative action hires. But oh no, the president says he wants to appoint a black woman in exactly the same way that Reagan wanted to appoint an Italian, and suddenly her credibility is undermined.
5. Oh, also, I await your criticism of Roy Cooper being considered for the VP slot. It's well known that Kamala is going to select a white man, because of the whiteness and the maleness. People are open about it. They are trying to reach the persuadable swing voters who just can't deal with the idea of two women on a ticket. Reaching black voters, though, is apparently identity politics.
