In Decline, Graciously

July 2, 2010

Via The New York Times:

Satisfaction with our national progress should not make us forget its authors: the very Protestant elite that founded and long dominated our nation’s institutions of higher education and government, including the Supreme Court.

Unlike almost every other dominant ethnic, racial or religious group in world history, white Protestants have ceded their socioeconomic power by hewing voluntarily to the values of merit and inclusion, values now shared broadly by Americans of different backgrounds. The decline of the Protestant elite is actually its greatest triumph.

Like any ethno-racial or religious group, the population of white Protestants is internally diverse. It would be foolish to conflate the descendants of New England smallholders with the offspring of Scandinavian sod farmers in the Middle West, just as it would be a mistake to confuse the Milanese with the Sicilians, or the children of Havana doctors with the grandchildren of dirt farmers from Chiapas, Mexico.

So, when discussing the white elite that exercised such disproportionate power in American history, we are talking about a subgroup, mostly of English or Scots-Irish origin, whose ancestors came to this land in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their forebears fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution, embedding in it a distinctive set of beliefs of Protestant origin, including inalienable rights and the separation of church and state.

It is not as though white Protestants relinquished power quickly or without reservation. Catholic immigrants, whether from Ireland or Southern Europe, faced a century of organized discrimination and were regularly denounced as slavish devotees of the pope unsuited to democratic participation.

And, although anti-Semitism in America never had anything like the purchase it had in Europe, it was a persistent barrier. Protestants like Abbott Lawrence Lowell, a great president of Harvard in the early 20th century, tried to impose formal quotas to limit Jewish admissions to the university. The Protestant governing elite must also bear its own share of responsibility for slavery and racial discrimination.

Yet, after the ideals of meritocratic inclusion gained a foothold, progress was remarkably steady and smooth. Take Princeton University, a longtime bastion of the Southern Protestant elite in particular. The Princeton of F. Scott Fitzgerald was segregated and exclusive. When Hemingway described Robert Cohn in the opening of “The Sun Also Rises” as a Jew who had been “the middleweight boxing champion of Princeton,” he was using shorthand for a character at once isolated, insecure and pugnacious. As late as 1958, the year of the “dirty bicker” in which Jews were conspicuously excluded from its eating clubs, Princeton could fairly have been seen as a redoubt of all-male Protestant privilege.

In the 1960s, however, Princeton made a conscious decision to change, eventually opening its admissions to urban ethnic minorities and women. That decision has now borne fruit. Astonishingly, the last three Supreme Court nominees — Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — are Princeton graduates, from the Classes of 1972, ’76, and ’81, respectively. The appointments of these three justices to replace Protestant predecessors turned the demographic balance of the court.

Why did the Protestant elite open its institutions to all comers? The answer can be traced in large part to the anti-aristocratic ideals of the Constitution, which banned titles of nobility and thus encouraged success based on merit. For many years, the Protestant elite was itself open to rising white Protestants not from old-family backgrounds.

Money certainly granted entrée into governing circles, but education was probably more important to the way the Protestant elite defined itself, which is why the opening of the great American universities has had such an epochal effect in changing the demographics of American elites. Another key source was the ideal of fair play, imported from the ideology of the English public schools, but practiced far more widely in the United States than in the class-ridden mother country.

Together, these social beliefs in equality undercut the impulse toward exclusive privilege that every successful group indulges on occasion. A handful of exceptions for admission to societies, clubs and colleges — trivial in and of themselves — helped break down barriers more broadly. This was not just a case of an elite looking outside itself for rejuvenation: the inclusiveness of the last 50 years has been the product of sincerely held ideals put into action.

Interestingly, this era of inclusion was accompanied by a corresponding diffusion of the distinctive fashion (or rather anti-fashion) of the Protestant elite class. The style now generically called “prep,” originally known as “Ivy League,” was long purveyed by Jewish and immigrant haberdashers (the “J.” in the New Haven store J. Press stands for Jacobi) and then taken global by Ralph Lauren, né Lifshitz. But until the Protestant-dominated Ivy League began to open up, the wearers of the style were restricted to that elite subculture.

The spread of Ivy League style is therefore not a frivolous matter. Today the wearing of the tweed is not anachronism or assimilation, but a mark of respect for the distinctive ethnic group that opened its doors to all — an accomplishment that must be remembered, acknowledged and emulated.

Advertisements

The Great Unknown (Or, Caveat Emptor)

May 11, 2010

United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ imminent vacation of the bench means the Obama administration will have another chance to add a friendly jurist to the Court, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is the President’s pick.

Typically, proposed justices are vetted against their judicial records: were their decisions often overturned by higher courts, or upheld? Did they hold fair trials? Did they often commit reversible error, as decided by reviewing judges? Have they written thoughtful, scholarly opinions which carefully set out their reasoning? The judicial history assembled by each judge reads like a resume, and those resumes are the yardsticks by which candidates for the nation’s highest court are measured.

Unfamiliar with Solicitor Kagan’s judicial record? Not sure, based on her published opinions and decisions, how she feels about pressing issues or how she behaves as a judge?

So is America, because Ms. Kagan has never been a judge. She has no record in the courtroom, no library of opinions, no history of having decisions upheld or overturned… in short, she has no judicial resume which might hint at even a whiff of qualification.

Perhaps the President based his support on her commendable record of service in the Solicitor General’s office? If so, there must be some stellar example of federal advocacy in it, because she’s barely been on the job one year. Hardly enough time to have compiled anything even close to a reviewable record of performance, good or bad.

True, she did well as the Dean of Harvard Law School. She strengthened what was already the world’s finest law school and made a demonstrable effort to reach out to conservative factions of the faculty, earning a reputation as a concensus-builder. But running a school is much different from serving as a justice on the most powerful country in the world’s most powerful court.

Ms. Kagan is likely a very deft administrator and a skilled attorney; you have to be, to run Harvard Law and to represent the United States government in court as Solicitor General. Unfortunately, neither of these things begins to hint at, let alone establish, her qualifications as a judge, let alone one sitting on the Supreme Court. And, considering the lifetime appointments which justices enjoy, there is little room for error in their selection… and even less for the dangers of the unknown, untested, and unproven.


The Right Choice

June 30, 2009

The United States Supreme Court correctly decided today to move away from racial hiring quotas, or anything smacking of them, and special-interest favoritism by ruling in favor of a group of New Haven, Connecticut firemen wrongfully denied promotions they had earned because too few minority candidates had been able to earn similar promotions.

The New Haven fire department had formerly administered a “promotion exam,” scores from which were intended for use in measuring the qualifications of firemen for advancement. A good number of New Haven firemen, black and white, studied hard for the test and took it. Some scored highly enough to be promoted, some did not. None of the test-takers scoring in the quartile necessary for advancement were black and so the city, fearing discrimination lawsuits, scrapped the test altogether and began to write a new one. The firefighters who had been promised promotions in exchange for high test scores were left twisting in the wind, despite earning the requisite scores.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority in the matter, formally Ricci vs. DeStefano, requiring employers to show a “strong basis in evidence” before throwing out legitimate test results in cases of anticipated promotions, not just a fear of lawsuits by minority special-interest groups. The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin explains: “Employers must be on very solid ground before making any decisions that would discriminate against a specific group of employees,” especially when deciding to disregard honest test results for fear of lawsuits from under-performers.

While New Haven claimed the scarcity of blacks scoring highly enough to be promoted would be interpreted as racism on the test’s part and lead to lawsuits, no way has yet been found in which the test, its administration, grading, or subject matter could advantage one race over another. Black, white, and Hispanic firemen were all consulted in designing the test.

Yesterday’s ruling reverses a previous one in favor of the city. The appeals court responsible for that earlier ruling included President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who voted for the city and against the firemen. Ms. Sotomayor, if confirmed, will replace retiring Justice David Souter.

According to Ms. Bravin, the ruling begs the question: “When is it proper to discriminate against one group in order to remedy discrimination against another?”

One answer, though circuitous, may be: groups which desire equal rights shouldn’t seek special treatment.

“The Supreme Court was sending a message to all employers,” one attorney says. “You shouldn’t engage in a form of intentional discrimination to avoid unintentional discrimination.” As Justice Kennedy notes in his opinion: “Whatever the city’s ultimate aim – however well-intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed – the city made its employment decision because of race.”


Justices Report Earnings

June 5, 2009

In mandatory earnings disclosures made public today, Justices of the United States Supreme Court revealed, among other things, some very comfortable book deals: Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed almost $300,000 in royalties from his 2008 autobiography and his 2007 memoir, My Grandfather’s Son,  has earned him almost $1.5 million.

Justice Antonin Scalia reports earnings of $100,000 from his recent primer on legal advocacy, Making Your Case.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is paid an annual salary of approximately $217,400, while Associate Justices earn about $208,100 a year.

Justice Antonin Scalia, author.

Justice Antonin Scalia, author.