Sotomayor Should Not Apologize For Being an ‘Affirmative Action Baby’
With all she made of her opportunities, she has no reason to humble herself.
The telenovella over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor took an interesting twist recently when it was revealed that the U.S. Appeals Court judge had, in the 1990s, announced during a panel discussion that she was “the perfect affirmative action baby” because she was “Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx, and from what is traditionally described as a socio-economically poor background.”
Sotomayor admitted that, while her grades were good, her test scores “were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale.” Though, she noted, “not so far off so that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Yet, she said, had the schools relied only on test scores, “it would have been highly questionable (that) I would have been accepted.”
Those remarks were captured on videotape, part of a cache that Sotomayor provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings July 13. I know exactly what Sotomayor meant. She was using her experience — a success story — to both call into question the ability of test scores to predict college performance and extol the virtues of race-conscious and class-conscious admissions policies. She was speaking with both arrogance and humility — acknowledging that she had help getting started on her path but speaking with the confidence that comes with knowing that her own talent and hard work had carried her the rest of the way.
Do you know who else has often acknowledged publicly that he is a product of affirmative action? Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. And when Powell says it, he comes across as saying: “Look, just because I got a few breaks early in my career because of a government program, doesn’t mean that my record doesn’t speaks for itself. That should prove that the program has value and doesn’t just benefit the unqualified.” Nevertheless, judging from the reaction of Sotomayor’s critics — especially white males on talk radio still smarting from her comments about how a white male judge might not reach the same conclusion as a “wise Latina” — there are folks out there who just don’t understand her remarks.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist, a frequent lecturer, and a regular contributor to CNN.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
40 Comments
1. lee:I’m not sure if she has to “apologize” for being an affirmative action baby. After all, as Ruben correctly points out, she had no control over the decision made by the admission board and other peers. If I was accepted to Yale because they felt the student population needed more Asians, I’m certainly not going to voluntarily exclude myself out of protest. PJM readers detest Ruben almost by default, but he makes a good point. If she was good enough, then she should not have credited affirmative action for her success.
But as Ruben observes, she did just that, emphatically even. Ruben offered himself as an example of a self sufficient minority, but Sotomayor apparently believes others have to propped up and afforded further advantages. Intentionally or not, she counted herself one of those less deserving people.
Remember, she’s already ruffled some feathers with her “wise Latina” comment. Ruben isn’t pleased with whites criticizing her for that, but they have a point – if she had replaced “white” with “Asian” or “black”, then those groups wouldn’t be any less bothered. Mexican president Fox once said “Mexicans do work that even blacks wouldn’t do”. Nothing serious came out of it, but some blacks leaders were predictably disturbed.
If the SCOTUS nominee is minority and has shown ethnocentric tendencies, it’s fair for anyone to be a little skeptical.
Jun 21, 2009 - 1:30 am 2. Dave Surls:She needn’t apologize. She just shouldn’t be a judge. There’s no room for bigots on the bench. Period.
Jun 21, 2009 - 1:46 am 3. Lisette:Affirmative action brings up some uncomfortable questions about the American education system. Why, if Sotomayor was so intelligent, did she not score highly enough – on standardised, anonymously marked tests – to get into these colleges?
There are huge chunks of the American population who are just as intelligent as the children of the elites but who are not being educated to the same standard. Most of them are ethnic minorities. AA is designed to hide that fact and to avoid having to actually deal with it. If it works so well, why the black failure rate for the bar exam six times higher than for whites? Why is the drop out rate for all recipients of AA so much higher than the rest of the population?
Oh, and the reason you were saddled with the label “affirmative action baby” is because AA leaves the people who it is claimed need it the most with the assumption that they can’t make it on their own merits.
Jun 21, 2009 - 2:37 am 4. Steve:In all the writings and ramblings that I’ve read of Sotomayor never once does she express pride or patriotism for her country.
She expresses nothing but contempt and hatred of European Americans. She believes in legalized discrimination against white working and middle class people overless qualified non whites of any stripe.
She has proven this with every public speech, written or spoken and with her court decisions.
We should fight her and this band of criminals running our country with every breath in our bodies.
She is weak acadenically and there are literally thousands of white people better suited, more itelligent and beter qualified tha her.
Jun 21, 2009 - 3:20 am 5. RE:At the end of the day, Affirmative Action still means that on a level playing field, you couldn’t cut it.
That’s the bottom line. All else is rationalization. So yes, she should be uncomfortable with it.
Jun 21, 2009 - 3:24 am 6. David Thomson:Sonia Sotomayor perhaps should not apologize for being an affirmative action baby. She simply took advantage of the available opportunities. Most of us would have done the exact same thing especially at such a young age. We should, however, be far more concerned about her poor education. This woman is unable to think clearly and follow and logical argument. More importantly, never forget what Sotomayor did to innocent fireman Frank Ricci. She stuck the knife into his back and then proceeded to twist it. Sotomayor is obviously a bigot who believes she has a right to stick it good and hard to white men. Such a person should not sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The awful and destructive era of foolish affirmative action must end. Rejecting Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination sends a unambiguous message to the leftist race hustlers—that they must find a another line of work.
Jun 21, 2009 - 4:51 am 7. davimcg:Rueben, Bingo! One of the byproducts of affirmative action is it calls into question the abilities and qualifications of persons in the “favored groups”. Sorry, that is just a fact. It may not seem fair but life is unfair. Now, if everyone had to play by the same rules, that perception would not be a problem. Oh, I also question the abilities and qualification of those who are legacy admissions. Another convention that should be abolished.
Finally, I do not question Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications, her intelligence or her accomplishments. I question whether she can be a fair jurist given her track record, her numerous bigoted statements and her dismissal of a judge’s solemn duty to transcend personal biases. I, as a man of no color, except during the summer, do not feel I would get a fair shake in her court room.
Jun 21, 2009 - 5:17 am 8. Ed Wallis:B O M B S H E L L N E W S
Affirmative Action Latino possessing questionable levels of literacy and reasoning *
finds “no problem”
with Affirmative Action Latina achieving positions beyond her capabilities, due mainly to state-sponsored bigotry, in spite of her repeated, blatant racist remarks and decisions.
I wonder out loud just why and how much longer Pajamas Media chooses to IMO *W*A*S*T*E* its money paying such individuals for these “articles”.
* …who, without AA, would likely never have the employment – much less exposure.
Jun 21, 2009 - 5:21 am 9. MarkD:Somehwhere there is a person who earned the spot Sotomayor took. If that doesn’t make you uneasy, you must be a bigot.
We know it doesn’t bother Sotomayor. We know it doesn’t bother Navarrette. It bothers me, but what would I know? I’m just a white guy who isn’t a lawyer, never wanted to be a judge, and believes that people ought to be judged by their actions.
Jun 21, 2009 - 5:46 am 10. TomJW:Thanks for the article Ruben. When I hear you say something, I know the oppsite is true.
Jun 21, 2009 - 5:55 am 11. Will:This all shows just where we are headed.No good will ever come of it.
Jun 21, 2009 - 6:05 am 12. Aureliano:I know exactly what Sotomayor meant. She was using her experience — a success story — to both call into question the ability of test scores to predict college performance and extol the virtues of race-conscious and class-conscious admissions policies.
Er, the phraseology is “both to call into question …”, not “to both call into question …”. You split the infinitive, Ruben, among other non-typo grammatical errors, as is typical in all your writings.
Oh, well, I guess literacy isn’t a requirement of affirmative action babies.
Or Harvard graduates ….
Sotomayor has an excellent memory, but she is NOT intelligent. She isn’t dumb, either, but last I checked it is preferable for a Supreme Court nominee to possess a truly exceptional mind. I’m sorry, like you she writes like a college-track white kid in high school. While that’s not too bad an accomplishment for your average knucklehead, an achievatron like Sotomayor should be light years ahead of clumsy language and amateurish sentence construction.
And so should you.
Jun 21, 2009 - 6:09 am 13. TubbyHubby:I am not going to read Ruben’s essay – I almost always end up disagreeing with the arguments he puts forth to support a title I often agree with. Having said that – Sotomayor is of that generation that lived when affirmative action was “a necessary evil”. Had she chosen a different profession, she could have been one of those who dashed my own father’s hopes (and plans) for promotion. She shouldn’t have to apologize – nor should she continue to defend the practice now that it has outlived it’s very real original premise.
Jun 21, 2009 - 6:27 am 14. ehunter:The first mission of Socialism is to grind
Jun 21, 2009 - 6:57 am 15. Delia:every one up into a gray uniform mass
so that everyone is “equal”. Dumb down the schools,
invent bogus majors, rewrite the past so that there is no cultural inheritance to pass on, advance people on the basis of race or sex.
Sotomayor has aggressively enforced this brainwashing ..and now wants to decide Supreme Court decisions for the next 40 years.
And white people, whose culture, and inheritance
are being gutted..sit there nodding passively because this entire movement is using the traditional American values of “tolerance” and “freedom” to disquise itself.
14. ehunter,
Let’s not forget the ‘ugly’ people. They are discriminated against too. I’m one of the ‘fortunate’ looking people, therefore I should have to ‘pay’ extra for the ‘ugly’ people.
Ain’t life rockin’ grand?
Jun 21, 2009 - 7:56 am 16. Blackwater:Yes she should. Legally discriminating against people based on race and gender is disgusting. Get back to your La Raza Klan meeting you racist slime.
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:18 am 17. Blackwater:And her affirmatice action acceptance record doesn’t surprise me at all. Another typical dimwitted hardcore study nerd. I had a friend like that. Great grades, hard worker, but the IQ of a burger flipper. No wonder most of her decisions were overturned by her colleagues. She’s not very bright is she. On top of that she’s EXTREMELY liberal AND a bigot. Yet you leftist idiots support her anyway just because she’s female and hispanic. I have no problem selecting someone who’s female or hispanic. But find someone less crazy for God sakes. Or better yet, Obama could just pick the best person for the job regardless of skin color and gender. Crazy idea I know…
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:29 am 18. Self-hating Boomer:She was educated k-12 in the Catholic school system. That system is head and shoulders above the public schools in NYC. And they certainly aren’t anti-Hispanic. There’s no valid claim to a disadvantage entering college. The fact that she chose to take advantage of racial discrimination policies tells me that she’s not only not that bright, but also willing to take a short-cut that’s not available to all.
And when you add this all up, it doesn’t exactly paint a flattering picture of Princeton’s integrity, either.
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:31 am 19. jackw:If everyone was colorless, your argument would be based on nothing. You’re trying to say people who aren’t qualified for a position, nevertheless deserve it and actually do a better job than people who are. Like a superior race just needs a leg up over everyone else (as if they need it) and their “talent and hard work” will carry them the rest of the way. Apparently, kids who were already qualified don’t work as hard as those who aren’t. I must have missed that day in class, being too busy studying for tests that don’t matter because a certain other race doesn’t need to study for them to get the position that I wanted. I also must have missed the day when we learned about how all Latinos are famous for being humble.
“So I’ve concluded that the judge never should have said what she said. She conceded too much”
Yeah you’re right about that. Don’t tell anyone you’re an affirmative action baby, they might not respect you as much knowing that’s how you got to where you are. Even though its not fair because you have so much talent, work so very hard, and you’re so humble too. Your article is about not wanting to be labeled as an “affirmative action baby” because you can’t help it and its an unfair label. True. Affirmative action IS unfair, but opposite of how you’re thinking. The absurdity of the whole thing is completely lost on you. Maybe its ‘cuz you’re just sooooo humble?
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:32 am 20. Robert O. Lopez:Ruben,
For crying out loud, write about something else. Can’t Latino writers write about something not dealing with being Latino? And do we always have to bare our souls about the struggles being the only brown person in an Ivy League dormitory? (I know it’s a great way to get published — as evidenced by the fact that I only seem to get published when I’m doing the Hispanic Ivy grad routine — but at some point, people in the Intellectuals of Color industry have to go on strike.)
She called herself an affirmative action baby because it was for her to brag about going from a ghetto to Princeton. It’s not humility, it’s pride. Lots and lots of pride. She thinks her degrees are worth more than the degrees of people who came from suburbs. So the premise of your article is drifting…. drifting….
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:58 am 21. Ken:Sotomayor shouldn’t have said alot of things. But she said them anyway. I have seen no clearer evidence of bias against white males than her numerous remarks over the years. There is no way to sugar coat it or explain away this bigotry. There is also evidence of that bias in her decisions. Her confirmation would put her in a position of working with other judges she clearly deems inferior to herself.
Her personal story should really not be given much weight anyway, millions of Americans of every creed and color have overcome challenges in their lives. No such deference was granted to Clarence Thomas by Democrats during his confirmation hearings, and his personal story was heartbreaking in some ways.
That is the wonder that is this country, everyone has a chance to succeed if they work hard enough. I see very little appreciation for that in her past either, she seems to have more criticisms of America than anything else. She is a typical grievance monger of the left who has no place on the court.
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:06 am 22. mhr:The problem with being an affirmative action admitee to a university is that, whether or not the likes of Navarrete agree or not, is that “persons of color” as liberals like to call them, are never free of the stigma of having been admitted over others whose academic record was superior. Many of us “minorities” worked and studied hard for our education prior to the era of liberal “compassion.” I for one know that I succeeded on my own, that I competed with the best of my peers. My Phi Beta Kappa key is a prized possession- I did it the old-fashioned way. I earned it. True, I was a recipient of GI Bill benefits but that was for what I did and not for the color of my skin. Liberals will never see the difference. In her heart of hearts Sotomayor agrees with me.
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:23 am 23. Ed:When all is said and done, affirmative action is a way of saying, I know you couldn’t get it on your merits, so here is the “legal” equivalent of cheating. All the excuses from those who benefit from affirmative action nowadays is just pathetic, and callow. I feel bad for two groups of people, (1st) the minorities that attain success, or could have on their merits but get affirmative action shoved down their throats. (2nd) the male whites that get cast aside, because the are not part of the chosen races. Imagine what that says to our children these days. Work hard, stay in school and stay out of trouble, unless your Hispanic, black, gay, female, pick your group, then you can attain mediocrity or less and get the whole show given to you on a silver platter. And spare us all the reply’s about racism in this country, that was then and this is now. Ummmm, look in the white House, ummmmmm the President Of The United States Of America is a male Black, although he only got there through Affirmative Action and white guilt. Affirmative action = RACISM. And this is the only way a half-wit, bigot like Judge Sotomayor will get into the Supreme Court. Truth hurts and this woman is a boob!
PS: Any of you want some affirmative action Doctor who earned 60% on his/her tests in medical school operating on your 5 year old child’s eyes, where there is a 50% chance they could go blind if the operation is not done correctly? Or would you rather have, as Queen Latina Sotomayor stated “an old white man” who earned 98% on his tests in medical school? I take the 98%. And so would any of you if you love your child!
PSS Happy Fathers Day all.
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:35 am 24. Self-hating Boomer:Not that things like public opinion matter to an ideologue, but the public strongly disagrees with Sotomayor and affirmative action:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307
This part is particularly interesting:
Ruben, you’re in the minority even among Hispanics.
Jun 21, 2009 - 10:39 am 25. ehunter:WHERE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WILL LITERALLY KILL US
From a friend who is actually being forced to participate in this:…The US Naval Academy is
Jun 21, 2009 - 10:42 am 26. DavidN:aggressively recruiting “C” and “D” minority students from high schools. White stellar students are being bypassed. The effect will be an officer corps of incompetents..and they system will work hard to shield them from this truth. Our nations enemies..will however not be so kind or considerate, their is no place more
unforgiving than the battlefield.
This is one of those bizarre discussions that just defies logic and reason. Let’s see if we can parse Mr. Navarette’s position:
White person goes to school, and is allowed in because he’s white: RACIST, BAD
Non-white person goes to school, and is allowed in because he’s non-white: NOT RACIST, GOOD
Everyone see the difference? Discriminating against Mr. Navarette and his ilk is bad, discriminating against others is fine. Everyone always uses white discrimination to justify affirmative action, but the essential point is very simple. If discriminating one way is (or was) wrong, then so is discriminating the other way. Didn’t you ever go to Sunday School, Ruben, and learn that two wrongs don’t make a right?
Jun 21, 2009 - 11:54 am 27. Will:Yeah Mr. Navarette,black is white and white is black,and water runs uphill.
Jun 21, 2009 - 12:38 pm 28. ehunter:There is no contradiction in Mr. Navarette argument. Everything is clear..but only once you realize that MultiCulturalism is simply a power takeover using the smokescreen of “fairness” and “tolerance”. Once they came using guns and naked ideology, now they come chanting “peace” and “tolerance”. In the end the effect is the same.
Jun 21, 2009 - 1:11 pm 29. Don:Well, you know what I always say, affirmative action is kind of like the original taming of the west, when the original Eurasians had twenty thousand years to develop the New World and blew it, until Whitey came along; it is said that modern mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.
Jun 21, 2009 - 1:46 pm 30. Self-hating Boomer:This whole argument is about to hit the fan. College enrollment these days is running about 60% female. The logic of affirmative action requires letting boys with lower grades in ahead of girls with higher grades. Sooner or later, this is going to court. This promises to be very interesting. Especially since Title IX is statutory.
I want to hear one of the defenders of AA tell me that they would support letting lower-performing boys in ahead of higher-performing girls.
Jun 21, 2009 - 1:55 pm 31. Ed:Look at LAPD SWAT. They dumbed down the selection process to get a female in. Then she squeezes off several rounds from an HK-MP5, into the ground while going through SWAT school. But the upper ranks let that slide, because they NEEDED a female in SWAT. What an embarrassing quota to be. That same thing would have gotten a male white tossed out, as has several lesser, “violations”, in the past, and will in the future. The SWAT selection school selection was kicked back a while back, by Deputy Chief R, for having to many male whites on it and as he said “not enough Hispanics. So if you’re looking to be attain that position as a male white, through hard work, that says, don’t waste your time. Continue patrol young grasshopper. AA is killing us all, and needs to go bye bye.
It’s not going to change anytime soon. After all, Obama is our quota President.
Jun 21, 2009 - 2:44 pm 32. Ed:Sorry for the lack of spacifics… She was on the range and during a cease fire, had the weapon pointed down at the ground. Then a “negligent discharge” took place, with her finger on the trigger, ummmm BIG no-no. But welcome aboard. Talk about a morale killer.
Jun 21, 2009 - 2:47 pm 33. ehunter:Except that the third world does not mimic European or white civilization. They simply envy it. They want the wealth, the goodies..without having the slightest understanding or appreciation of what makes it possible. They tell themselves that whitey “stole” it..therefore its okay for them to steal. The best example of what this does to a nation is South Africa. From being the economic showcase of Africa it has become the Murder capital of the world, the Rape capital of the world and the AIDS capital of the world. It also now has the shortest lifespan in the world 39 years. On every category of the United Nations Development Index, South Africa under Black Rule has been on non stop spiral downwards. Crime, disease, longevity, child mortality, education, exports and above all Government Corruption..all have deteriorated year after year. But you will NEVER hear the white liberals in the West mention what this. never.
Jun 21, 2009 - 3:24 pm 34. Self-hating Boomer:One other thing.
A lot of people are resentful of illegal aliens, and they’re accused of being racist for that. Let’s put that aside for a minute, because Sotomayor is a Puerto Rican. That means she was born an American citizen, and there was never any question about her right to be here, and have full access to everything that citizenship brings.
There’s a flip side to that coin. No one expects a Costa Rican or an Ecuadorian or a Mexican to have any sense of belonging or loyalty to the US. They’re here to makes some money, and usually go home after. Most don’t hate the US, but they don’t love it, either. They don’t have a dog in the fight. I understand that. That makes sense. When Americans go to work in Saudi Arabia, it’s to make money, and it’s not out of any particular feelings for the king. Sorry, Abdullah, but it’s just a job.
This is why I find her membership in La Raza so offensive. It’s not just that La Raza is (by its very name) a racialist organization, it’s that it’s a seditious organization. I get why Mexiacns might be attracted to that. But it’s outrageous for a born American citizen to be anywhere near such a seditious organization.
That would be bad enough if she were applying for a job as attorney at some firm. But for someone like that to be a judge is atrocious.
Jun 21, 2009 - 6:29 pm 35. Jim Baker:Another fine collectivist article by our resident affirmative action hispanic writer. Where did PJM find this guy?
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:20 pm 36. AST:I don’t begrudge anybody a shot at a higher education, but I don’t think we do most Affirmative Action beneficiaries a favor when we plunk them into academic settings they aren’t prepared for.
True affirmative action is more along the lines of charter schools where talented kids are given an opportunity to compete at the same level with their more advantaged peers.
My objection to Sotomayor isn’t that she benefited from affirmative action. It’s that she believes in racial quotas and the idea that one’s life experiences count more than one’s ability to apply reason and precedent to specific cases and her apparent acceptance of the idea that the judiciary is just another political branch, one that is almost impossible to overrule. Having been overruled frequently, she is sure to revel in that kind of near absolute power.
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:30 pm 37. blotto:Boy as a journalist, Mr. Navarette certainly throws his ethics and standards out to the window in order to make his point:
“Sotomayor assumes that she got a break because of her ethnicity and socio-economic background.”
Ms. Sotomayor admits she was an affirmative action admittee to college.
“But what if those committees also, on occasion, overlooked the mediocre test scores of a white applicant from the suburbs?” Never going to happen. And if you have references and afadavits that this has happened I would like to see them. Buy just because you print it does not make it so.
“Maybe — with regard to a variety of applicants — committee members don’t put the emphasis on test scores that the companies that make a fortune administering the test have lead us all to believe so we’ll fork out the fees to take the tests.” Huh? Everyone knows (based on the court cases that plaintiffs pursued alleging discrimination of white students) that the mostly white female college administrators almost always overlook scores of minority applicants in order to make their quotas.
The following anecdote is delicious: “But then, one day, a few years ago, it hit me: My two college roommates freshman year at Harvard… were a pair of Italian-American kids whose high school records were just as good as mine. And somehow I wound up being saddled for life with the label “affirmative action baby” and they didn’t.”
How does Mr. Navarette know that his roomates were just as stupid as him? Did they show him their test scores? Or are we supposed to believe Mr. Navarette? We are to believe he would not embellish his story in order make a point.
“Later, in the professional world, I was hired for positions and — once I arrived on the job — I’d look around and realize I had better credentials and had accomplished more than most if not all of my colleagues.”
Well here we go. Mr. Navarette substantiates Ms. Sotomayor’s claim that white men are stupid. That is just too juicy. Both Hispanics claim something that is racist to the core, and is said about those same white males who hired and promoted them to their current position of incompetence. How sweet is that? Mr. Navarette has worked under white male, liberal editors all his professional life yet he knew he was better than them-just like Sotomayor. But each of those white male, stupid liberals put up with both Navarette and Sotomayor in order to feel good about themselves at parties for having helped a minority gain status. So everyone felt good about themselves. And that is what affirmative action is: White male/female, stupid liberals feeling good about themselves for helping a minority.
Jun 22, 2009 - 7:49 am 38. Kurt:I’m no fan of affirmative action, but at least Sotomayor was able to succeed at Princeton, in that she graduated Summa Cum Laude. That’s more than can be said about our current President, whose transcripts from Columbia are still shrouded in mystery. Had Obama done as well as Sotomayor, he would have made the transcripts public.
Jun 22, 2009 - 3:36 pm 39. Ed Wallis:PAJAMAS MEDIA:
STOP PAYING THIS FOOL FOR ARTICLES!!!
Jun 23, 2009 - 2:34 pm 40. tanstaafl:Thanks to affirmative action, preferential admissions etc., we now, apparently, have a whole raft of individuals with PhD’s (piled higher & deeper) and/or high positions who, intellectually, may be rather mediocre.
A younger Sotomayor on tape rather glibly rationalizing her lower college entrance test scores due to “cultural bias” in those tests is not particularly credible.
When it comes to advancement through affirmative action measures, I’m with Clarence Thomas who has no use for such artificial devices.
Jun 24, 2009 - 6:04 am