I don’t usually publish on the weekends (and I’m likely off-topic), but there’s an editorial in the Washington Post today titled “Why elites do belong on the Supreme Court“. It’s written by Christopher Edley, Jr., the Dean of Berkeley Law School.
Generally speaking, Dean Edley argues that it’s a good thing our United States Supreme Court is now completely dominated by Harvard and Yale law graduates. I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I believe his views represent arrogance of the worst sort. His editorial contains all kinds of presumptuous language, flawed logic and assumptions, and provides an excellent example of much that is wrong with academics in general and the culture of picking justices.
He writes: “[W]hat matters is intellectual horsepower, not office-chat charm. It is wisdom and analysis, not personal experiences. If a judge’s life is elite in the sense of excellence, that’s fine. In fact, that may be the point.”
According to Edley, if the Harvard and Yale law schools think a person is excellent, then that person must actually be excellent because they’ve demonstrated the proper “intellectual horsepower”. I disagree. All this person has necessarily demonstrated is that they are one specific type of achiever. These students took the right classes, did the right things, and knew the right people. Is it anything shocking to admit that they probably came from a privileged family? The law admissions process is essentially a filter for personality and mindset. It rewards high undergraduate grades and a high LSAT score. It’s no secret that getting good grades in college is largely a process of learning to parrot and regurgitate knowledge back to your professors. I don’t think that skill is useful for a Supreme Court Justice. Likewise, I have no faith that a high standardized test score is any accurate predictor of whether someone will make a “good” Associate Justice – whatever that means.
Edley poses the question about nominee selection: “Do you want someone like you or someone better than you?” The obvious implication is that Harvard and Yale graduates are “someone better than you.” This disturbing attitude is entirely too prevalent in academia and government. Furthermore, I find it literally dangerous to my idea of democracy when anyone spreads the gospel that government officials may be somehow better than ordinary citizens. I worry about a natural tendency for these officials to group themselves with others who are “better than you” and forget entirely what it’s like to be the guy behind the grocery’s deli counter. I’m concerned that when it comes time for these officials to review how “someone better than you” can treat “you”, it might not go so well for “you”.
I disagree that letting in a few physics major underwear models or single-parent firefighter medievalists significantly changes the mix. Almost by definition, the process often excludes creative or critical thinkers. There are many brilliant students who might have gotten B’s instead of A’s because they sidetracked into thoughts or ideas that their professors considered too unusual or different. Or maybe they questioned a professor’s opinion or viewpoint. According to Edley, professors are “someone better than you” – and you should listen to them. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that.
I would suggest that Edley’s reference to the military’s personnel system as a shining example was simply a mistake – it could be argued that the military is one of the least meritocratic institutions in America. One could say that military advancement is often had by just sticking around, doing what you’re told, knowing the right people, and not making a fuss. History is littered with less-than-brilliant admirals and generals. At the very least, the armed forces has little reputation for rewarding creativity or critical thinking.
I note that Edley says he was a Harvard professor for 20+ years – which clouds his opinion with the worst sort of self-congratulatory back-patting. Is he suggesting that he, too, is “excellent” and has “intellectual horsepower” because Harvard picked him? Is he suggesting that he has a right to tell us who does and doesn’t have “uncommon smarts” because he, too, was at Harvard? How circular and arrogant is this argument?
Edley also writes that, “[a]t every turn [Kagan] has excelled in a meritocratic system, one that is selective yet far more open than in generations past.” This makes several assumptions about the fairness of the “meritocratic system” that I’m uncomfortable with. I’m not sure almost any system operates completely on merit, but I’m sure the answers would vary by who you ask. If you asked Edley, Kagan, and others on top of the system, I’m sure they would tell you that the system is great. But you’d probably get different responses from people who couldn’t go to Harvard or Yale for one reason or another. It’s like asking the guys in prison whether the criminal justice system works. Finally, am I supposed to feel comfortable with Edley’s vague claim that the system is “far more open”? Openness isn’t all about letting in 51% women and 10% minorities.
Maybe Edley’s most disturbing statement is: “At the Supreme Court level, it’s all about finding oracles for Olympus.” Do I even have to attack the underlying assumptions behind calling these citizens “oracles for Olympus”? Are Harvard and Yale graduates gods? Are our Justices gods? I have to ask: Were they gods before they were confirmed or do they only become gods afterwards? I thought our American philosophy of government discouraged exaltation of our government officials in this way. Judges and justices – even if they’re “better than you” – do not communicate with gods in a way that mere mortals cannot. Edley’s apparent belief that these people might bring down the laws from somewhere elevated is outrageous and completely out-of-touch.
I don’t understand why there’s not more uproar about this. Are Harvard and Yale graduates really that much better than anyone else? I doubt it – and we shouldn’t let anyone convince us that they are “somebody better than you”. Does anyone else in America feel inadequately represented by a Supreme Court composed entirely of Jews and Catholics, all attenders of Harvard and Yale, and primarily from New York or California? This kind of narrow monopoly on who can be considered “elite” is bad for the country.
I debated posting this here, because it doesn’t appear obviously relevant to a forum which mostly focuses on arts and creativity. But it’s also a blog about Birmingham, Alabama – a city that’s often told it’s inferior. And I also often encourage everyday people to pursue whatever creativity you possess – directly in the face of anyone who might tell you that you shouldn’t be singing, painting, making music, or dancing. Don’t abandon any field, creative or otherwise, to self-selected “experts”.
The Lies I Tell My Dog