Ginsburg's Affirmative Action Lesson

2 years ago

0 Comments Say Something »

Text Size

Mary C. Curtis

National Correspondent

Author Bio »

Contact Author »

Subscribe :

Why is anyone surprised at Ruth Bader Ginsburg's statement that she was considered for a position at Columbia because of affirmative action? As Ria states in her post, affirmative action didn't make her smart or prepared or exceptional. She already possessed those qualities. It just put her name on the list.

That's the purpose of affirmative action. It's not about preferences. It's opening up the pool of talent and putting people who have been historically excluded on that list.

In the 1950s, Sandra Day O'Connor graduated third in a class of 102 at Stanford Law School; she served on the Stanford Law Review. And no law firm in California was willing to hire her as a lawyer because of her gender. She did get one offer to be a legal secretary. Obviously, that had nothing to do with her qualifications.

In years past, Tiger Woods – who no one would deny is an exceptional competitor – would not have made it through the clubhouse door. Of course, there were talented players of color before he came along who never got the chance. The spirit of affirmative action is designed to give everyone – in every field -- a chance. What people make of it is up to them.

It's natural to be afraid of increased competition, to fall back on stereotypes and "the way it's always been done," unless people see it as a matter of self-interest. So think of it this way: The individual who gets an opportunity and runs with it might be the doctor who cures you, the lawyer who gets you out of trouble, or the professor who teaches you a valuable lesson.

It can only be good for America if the potential of all her people is nurtured and appreciated.

Filed Under: Supreme Court, Woman Up

Tagged: affirmative action, AffirmativeAction, ruth bader ginsburg, RuthBaderGinsburg, supreme court, SupremeCourt

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.