Both Sides Now
Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick tries to give a little support to Sonia Sotomayor's statement that a "wise Latina" would, in essence, make a better judge than a white male. Some tried to claim Sotormayor simply expressed herself poorly, but now that it's known she said this more than once, Lithwick thinks a better defense is in order.
So Lithwick brings out a little social science that claims to show how women and men approach things differently--and that women, to succeed, have to understand men, but men don't have to understand women. Thus women will be capable of understanding both sides in a case better than a man.
Let's assume the claim that women see things considerably differently from how men do is accurate. Let's also assume this'll mean they come down with measurably different opinions.
If they're truly that different, I suppose you could then say you think women make better judges. But you could also say men make better judges. The question is would Dahlia Lithwick write anything explaining why the latter argument is acceptable.
1 Comments:
You've pointed out the precise danger in the most scary affirmative action argument, that "different groups think differently".
If that's true, then it stands to reason that some corporation needs far more Latino thinkers, and some other one needs additional Native American insights, and a different corporation would benefit from 99% white 1% Asian thinkers on its payroll. And it further follows that every corporation owes it to its shareholder to hire an expert in how different groups think, to determine exactly which ethnicity is best suited to fill which positions.
Post a Comment
<< Home