US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3460

On January 28 2022 23:22 LegalLord wrote:

Via a priori discrimination that mandates a certain diversity quota for a certain position. Nah, that's a false equivalency; you can definitely encourage equality of outcomes without that particular brand of diversity engineering.

As was mentioned before, why specifically a black woman? There are plenty of other underrepresented groups we could also put on the court, like a Muslim, or atheist, Asian, Native American, etc. Almost sounds like this isn't really about diversity, but about discrimination based on some other form of political gain - paying back a favor to some black Democrat or other who helped them squeeze out Bernie Sanders perhaps? Purely speculative, but if that really is the reason, would that really be what you'd call good for diversity rather than just plain old quid pro quo under the cover of diversity?

On January 28 2022 22:34 JimmiC wrote:
Why is it strange to have a group of people who jishe your society to try to better match that group? Like if it was already all black women Id get it, but there is none.

Im sure there is marginal differnces between all the top candidates from a legal perspective as well so adding someone with the experienecs of a black woman growing up in America likely adds value.


Most of the talk around diversity in large companies now it is not about meeting quotas it is getting a wide range of people with different back grounds amd experieneces because they can add differnt helpful perspectives. For example a Asian Canadian will likely know how to sell something better to Asian Canadians then a white one.

Someones experiences and background can play an important part in how they interprut law. It would be an important voice to hear when these decisions are being made and I can see why many people would want that voice.

I can also see why people scared of change and happy with the status quo or would even want to move backwards would not. Most would rather remain ignorant of those experiences because it is easier than hearing them and they fear that their expeirences will get worse.

On January 28 2022 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
We should be saying the quiet part out loud and we should be explaining why it is a benefit.

On January 28 2022 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
At some point people need to shift their thinking like most top companies have where they see diversity as an asset not a liability. And that goes beyond race and gender but also to things like where you were born (a white American in rural Florida and a White American who grew up in Seattle have had very different experiences and likely outlooks), socio economic, and so on.

The diversity itself is an asset, it can not be the only thing you look at but it can most definitely be part of the criteria. If Biden picks a qualified person who is also a Black women then great, she is likely the most qualified and her being a Black woman can and should be part of that.

We should be saying the quiet part out loud and we should be explaining why it is a benefit. This whole Biden should have picked Harris but not said why is stupid because it leads to people thinking it is unfair instead of a valuable part of the criteria.

If you are picking a doctor for palliative care you probably want compassion to be a component over maybe the top grades. If they are a virologist than compassion may not matter as much as grades. Making and interrupting the rules is an area where having representation from all parts of the group those rules pertain too is important. It is a tenant of well function democracy.

On January 28 2022 23:22 LegalLord wrote:

There are plenty of other underrepresented groups we could also put on the court, like a Muslim, or atheist, Asian, Native American, etc. Almost sounds like this isn't really about diversity, but about discrimination based on some other form of political gain

On January 28 2022 23:59 LegalLord wrote:

Semantic quibble.

One option - a general "underrepresented minority" factor for all positions with no particular preference towards any one minority group, but that overall weighs it in favor of any group that is underrepresented in the field. So, say, if you're being hired by your grade on X number of weighted criteria on a grade of 1-10 (a good policy in general for hiring, it turns out), maybe URM (field-specific, probably) is one of those criteria. Unambiguously has to focus on the low levels first and foremost, because if you're not building a bench of qualified candidates then all you have is an anomalous diversity hire. But not excluding from senior positions either. It should still be the case that the obviously more qualified non-URM candidate still wins out, but that the preference is tuned enough that overall, URMs get a boost to get a benefit over historic trends.

On January 29 2022 00:39 JimmiC wrote:

If he said he was only going to pick someone with a 4.0 grade point average in College would that be wrong to exclude all the others that did not?

On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:


I do, but firing and hiring are also difference. Once is based on actual performance and one is based on potential performance.

Being a 4.0 student vs a 3.7 student does not make one better at most jobs, I'm not even sure if there is any data to say that there is any correlation at all and yet we are OK with it as criteria.

There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group. The thing with SCJ is it is a group and putting the 7 best individuals together by any criteria will not necessarily give the best outcomes. It is harder to see when they are hiring just one person because it feels "unfair" but if you want the highest preforming group you want to see what your group has, what it is missing and then add the missing part.