Letter received in response to Sotomayor article
Earlier in the week we published this article covering the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:
http://www.diversity-executive.com/article.php?article=669
The next day we received this letter in response:
Dear Mr. Margolis:
It is unfortunate and for me quite disappointing that you so gleefully praise the nomination of a person first and foremost because of her ethnicity and sex. You then go on to discuss qualifications in a “on yeah, there is some of that too.”
Diversity for you seems to be a thin veil for racism, sexism and favoritism. In the name of diversity, it is apparently permissible – even desirable and encouraged – to play favorites, have double standards and be biased/prejudiced against some.
Diversity in this context, and I have found the foundation of most issues promoted by Diversity Executive, is pure and simple fraud. The more strongly you support this type of favoritism, the more you invite the inevitable backlash and reverse pendulum swing. We will soon arrive at a situation in which a candidate will be denied a nomination simply because ‘she’ is ‘Hispanic,’ etc.
A much better view is that a person is qualified for the position …. period.
Your comments are biased, racist and sexist. It makes little difference that you are promoting what for many is a worthy cause. Shame on you.
Sincerely,
William Joseph
***
In the article, I made a direct effort to balance consideration of Sotomayor’s ethnicity, gender and experience; establishing her qualifications but acknowledging that her ethnicity is still significant, particularly seeing as concerned parties (such as the quoted HNBA) have wanted such an appointment for years. Paragraph two of the article makes clear that her qualifications are the primary reason for her nomination, but that discussion of the significance of her ethnicity and gender is merited because for many with a vested interest in seeing progress by such individuals, these things do matter. To act like they don’t – and ignore a central element of the story – would be silly, especially in a publication focused on diversity and inclusion.
We'd like to extend the matter to our readers; what do you think of this issue and Mr. Joseph's take on it?
http://www.diversity-executive.com/article.php?article=669
The next day we received this letter in response:
Dear Mr. Margolis:
It is unfortunate and for me quite disappointing that you so gleefully praise the nomination of a person first and foremost because of her ethnicity and sex. You then go on to discuss qualifications in a “on yeah, there is some of that too.”
Diversity for you seems to be a thin veil for racism, sexism and favoritism. In the name of diversity, it is apparently permissible – even desirable and encouraged – to play favorites, have double standards and be biased/prejudiced against some.
Diversity in this context, and I have found the foundation of most issues promoted by Diversity Executive, is pure and simple fraud. The more strongly you support this type of favoritism, the more you invite the inevitable backlash and reverse pendulum swing. We will soon arrive at a situation in which a candidate will be denied a nomination simply because ‘she’ is ‘Hispanic,’ etc.
A much better view is that a person is qualified for the position …. period.
Your comments are biased, racist and sexist. It makes little difference that you are promoting what for many is a worthy cause. Shame on you.
Sincerely,
William Joseph
***
In the article, I made a direct effort to balance consideration of Sotomayor’s ethnicity, gender and experience; establishing her qualifications but acknowledging that her ethnicity is still significant, particularly seeing as concerned parties (such as the quoted HNBA) have wanted such an appointment for years. Paragraph two of the article makes clear that her qualifications are the primary reason for her nomination, but that discussion of the significance of her ethnicity and gender is merited because for many with a vested interest in seeing progress by such individuals, these things do matter. To act like they don’t – and ignore a central element of the story – would be silly, especially in a publication focused on diversity and inclusion.
We'd like to extend the matter to our readers; what do you think of this issue and Mr. Joseph's take on it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cindi Kiner on -
Mr. Margolis,
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Joseph. I, too, was offended when I read the article concerning Ms. Sotomayor for the very reasons that Mr. Joseph states. The American Way is to work hard and make progress in life and in your career based on your abilities, talents and motivation. I thought we had gotten past the issues of ethnicity and gender, and it is disappointing to see that there are people who still put those issues above experience and qualifications. In the case of a Supreme Court justice, the first qualification should be whether this individual will be able to judge impartially and support the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of previous statements that Ms. Sotomayor has made, this does not appear to be the case. By the same token, the legislators who will confirm or deny her seat on the bench should be blind to any issues of gender and ethnicity, and judge her based on the hard facts of experience and qualifications. You are absolutely right that there is nothing wrong with being proud that a Hispanic woman can be nominated for such a position, but only because and if such person actually meets the qualifications. She does not.
-
Permalink Reply by dave mather on -
I find the response a bit strong - accusing someone of racism is a shortcut to shutting down valuable dialogue.
If we are to be "color-blind", as some proponents of diversity say, then they cannot have it both ways. A person's qualifications are the key in hiring. One of the most diverse clients I have has one rule - hire the best.
I find some well-meaning people often disrespect those they are trying to help by implying they need "a leg up" to overcome racism or perceived discrimination. There are bigots in the world as well as those holding strong racist beliefs. However, overcoming these prejudices will not be the result of the same behavior in reverse.
Fat people are discriminated against, thin people are discriminated against, smart people are discriminated against, not-so-smart people . . . you get the idea.
Facing challenges and resistance from others is what happens in the world.
I find most diversity initiatives well-meaning - but ill-advised.
I do find that many diversity initiatives have a political background, and I'm offended by that. The clue is when proponents want to be evaluated by their intentions, not their results. This is political speak at its finest. I'd prefer politicians stand on their beliefs and commitments, but there are those who try to mask their beliefs with "spin" rhetoric. I'm not suggesting this, or any other article here has such a background, but some “objective opinions” are obviously based on a specific political belief.
Check-out the “fairness” doctrine – an obvious attempt to sensor the airwaves. This political view flies in the face of freedom of speech, but it sounds so positive. Who could be against “fairness”? Apparently the proponents of this bill are, since they feel people need to be protected from views other than their own. I don’t need this kind of protection, thank you very much. Freedom comes with a price, but it’s worth it.
Freedom as a value stands for freedom for everyone, including the freedom to fail and hold strong views different than my own. While it’s irritating to hear offensive rhetoric, our radios and TV’s have off/on switches.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil DeCarlo on -
Diversity is the quality of being different...not better or worse. Convergance is to approach the same point from different directions. Let's get the diction right first. If the point we aim to approach is that of equality then diversity must recognize the qualities of difference (Talent and Achievement) so that the goal of equality will be achieved through convergence. When Judge Sotomayor expressed her comment several years ago she was half right! She omitted the fact that - despite race or ethnicity - someone else's background could be just as valuable and appropriate as hers. This from a white male who came from an Italian ghetto on the Southside of Chicago whose background, upbringing, and family also was diverse and who became educated (lawyers, doctors, professors, bankers and engineers) and productive citizens. We respected work and were "hungry" to achieve and "move up". That's what needs to be evaluated. Not so much gender and ethnicity.
-
Permalink Reply by TERRY HOWARD on -
I find it very, very intersting...and quite telling that negative responses to the article by William Joseph and the others have conveniently ignored the fact that race and ethnicity continues to be barriers and discrimination does continue to occur on the basis of those characteritics. It would have nice to have heard them speak out on white privilege, but I won't hold my breath.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Maurer on -
re: In defense of Mr. Margolis and the editors at Diversity Executive magazine:
While Mr. Joseph’s analysis does well to add to the dialog on the complexities of the intersection of race, sex, and politics in our country, it lacks the critical balance of understanding that is necessary to move the diversity discussion forward.
In an age in which racial discrimination is still manifest in the business environment and women continue to face obstacles to parity in pay and career opportunities vis-à-vis men - Margolis is right to trump up the fact that Sotomayor is first and foremost, a Latina woman. Personally, you or I may feel as though we live in a colorblind, post-gender society but the reality remains that when Sonia Sotomayor looks in the mirror, she sees herself and not a colorless, genderless construct. What she sees is the sum total of her character, her appearance, her goals, and her ambitions, her culture, and her history - and each element of this owes something to her experiences as a woman and as a Latina. These matter implicitly and ought to be considerations in addition to (though not as you correctly point out – in place of) her qualifications. Indeed, her qualifications (though not well-defined by most of her detractors) are exceptional.
Where we can all agree is that qualifications matter. But do they always? Are all candidates of color or all women afforded the same opportunities as their white or male counterparts? The answer from my experience is an unequivocal no. Women and racial/ethnic candidates are not consistently afforded the same access to opportunity as their white male counterparts. Without opportunity – does being qualified really matter? It’s an interesting starting point for a lengthy debate. Needless to say though, my heart leaps at the news that a qualified Latina was able to find her way to the top. For me, the Sotomayor nomination is an affirmation of Executive efforts to provide equal opportunity for qualified individuals. It is an illustration of how best practices to retain and promote top talent can provide for a more diverse workforce.
I'll close on a tangentially related note that draws on my background as an admirer of the Court and US History. From the standpoint of both political and moral philosophy, it is essential that the highest court in the land reflect the opinions and perspectives of the people of the United States, and this means being mindful of race, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other differences in choosing a nomination. This is as true of today's Court as it was of the Marbury Court that first boldly made the claim to represent the opinion of the people. As the conscience and voice of the opinion of the people, the Court is long overdue for a nominee who can represent the views of so many like her.
-
Permalink Reply by TC on -
Hi Cindi,
I disagree with your response as well as Mr. Joseph. The first problem with your response is your belief that we have gotten past the issues of ethnicity and gender. If this was so, then there would not be a need for this magazine nor would we be having this conversation. Next you mentioned that legislators should be blind to issues of gender and ethnicity. This is another problem. Diversity and inclusion is about embracing differences such as gender, race, educational background. This is why we are having such a problem when ever someone mentions diversity, race, gender, etc. This article simply embraced and celebrated the fact that we have a minority women who is well educated was appointed to such a prestigious position. And this appointment should be applauded. Lastly, you mentioned that she does not meet the qualifications. Did you sit on the panel that reviewed her background, educational, and professional experiences? What right do you have to suggest that she is not qualified?
Margolis, continue to write great stories as I will continue to suscribe to this magazine.
ADVERTISEMENT
About Diversity Executive Network
Certmag Admin
created this social network on Ning.
© 2010 Created by Certmag Admin
