There are a lot of qualities the governor should look for in a replacement for Chief Justice Randall Shepard on the Indiana Supreme Court. But The Journal Gazette seems to care only about one of them:
Commission members and the governor all need to realize that diversity on the court is crucial and that Indiana's status as one of just two states with no female justices is an embarrassment, with both practical and symbolic repercussions.
Shepard has served Hoosiers well, but an all-male court is by definition limited in its outlook. Daniels has an opportunity to make the court even better.
Naturally, our page has a different opinion.
Here's our editorial from Friday:
Randall T. Shepard is retiring after 24 years as chief justice, and he will also be the chairman of the commission that will recommend three candidates for his own replacement to Gov. Mitch Daniels. He says both men and women will be considered for the job, but whether the next justice is a woman “depends on who applies for the job,” which is the right way to view the process.
The state's obligation is to, in Shepard's words, “beat the bushes and encourage people of all sorts to make themselves available,” not just for the sake of having a diverse pool but to make sure the best people available are in the talent pool. Then, the three people most suited for the bench should be chosen from that group. Period.
Then, the governor must pick the most qualified of the three. Period.
Not saying gender shouldn't be considered as one factor. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
Institutions generally get what they seek. If their goal is diversity, then other qualifications, they will probably have a diverse staff that might or might not be good. If their goal is competence, then diversity, they will likely have a competent staff that might or might not be diverse. Which kind of staff would you want at, say, your doctor's office?
Comments
Diversity just for diversity's sake produces really bad results.
Your doctors office analogy is spot on. Think of it this way, when you are heading into open heart surgery do you want the board certified heart surgeon operating or the podiatrist that was shoo'd in to meet the meet the minority quota by the hospital's human resources department?
The staff of life, or course. But that might cost too much bread.
Tim:
Amen to THAT.
I've been saying the EXACT SAME thing...for decades.
Give me the PERSON MOST QUALIFIED...period, be they the wrench-jockey working on my car, the surgeon, the pilot flying the airliner, the veternarian, police officer or firefighter.
Sometimes, we need that IMBALANCE to be able to ACHIEVE better results.
That forces EVEYRONE to apply themselves MORE (should they desire to do so), and allow the "cream" to rise to the top (where THEY belong).
Not everyone is cut out to be at the top of every field.
(and to think otherwise is folly)
As they say: "If it (whatever speciality *it* is) were THAT EASY, everyone would do it".
Works with Special Forces damn well
And it should apply to ANY professional position.
(except lawyers...don't need any more of them...lol)
;)
If the governor were to select a qualified XYZ to the court, XYZ historically being underrepresented at the state supreme court level, it would to encourage others of that group to attempt to move forward in their careers, having been put on notice that it's no longer closed to them.
In a "committee" type setting, if two people think exactly the same, one of them is superfluous. Having diversity of backgrounds means there are fewer unintended consequences when they resolve issues. That makes diversity more important than at lower judicial ranks, where there is a sole judge handling a case.
The governor should never name someone unqualified, of course, but in decades of hiring, I found that there rarely is one person who is significantly more qualified than others. There are usually multiple people who are up to the task, and from that pool of people, the boss usually picks the person who "fits in" best with the organization's culture - and I'm not condemning that practice. "Fitting in" is usually important.
After all, life is too short, and the work day too long to have people in slots where they aren't happy.
what about a qualification being a perspective not from a white middle-age man? justthink the fresh thinking that comes with that.
If you were going to war in some foreign country, you would expect all of your fellow soldiers to be able to handle a weapon and a few other basic military maneuvers. But wouldn't you also want at least one or two guys on your team who understood the language, history and other cultural aspects of that specific theatre?
Working on a car is one thing. It's sheer mechanics, so all you need is the best wrench monkey for the job. But most professions today entail a great deal of personal interaction as well. And diversity is very important there. The diversity element should never be seen as more important than the mechanics, but it does matter a great deal.
So as to Leo's question above, I agree that competency should trump diversity, but that diversity should count for at least a few points because it does positively impact the overall strength of the unit.