[feedback discussion added at end; I'd add that Palin and the late nineteenth century matters are more diversity picks, especially the latter; Palin, however, probably has some affirmative action flavor. The two categories overlap, as does the criticisms of them, but I probably should have took more care to separate the two a bit more.]
One typically conservative frayster over at Slate [this entry was originally is a response to an article by Dahlia Lithwick] a few years back came on the side of affirmative action basically because the alternative simply was unconscionable. IOW, as compared to what, not just in theory, but in practice.
Boo hoo Justice Thomas. Both the rich and poor are arrested for sleeping under bridges is the usual line given to suggest the true inequality of law. But, hey, the rich feel guilty and dishonored for their injustice. So, it really isn't that inequitable, right?
The practice is problematic, but when dealing with cancer, including the cancer of racism, the solution is liable to be painful. I'm open to all the criticisms, but when Thomas lays it on so thick, count me out. As one person noted:
I GOT into college because I'm African American. There. I said it. I do so with company from Yale University legal scholar Stephen Carter. In the first line of his book, "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby," [read this book myself some time back; recall it was a good read] Carter notes that he was admitted to Yale's law school because he was black. And like Carter, I'll add this rejoinder: So what?
It was better than being rejected from my college choice because I was black. As we all know, America's history is rife with the rejections of people because they were black. But nothing is as clear-cut as it reads. Carter went to Yale after fine work at Stanford. I had good grades and an even better SAT score. Most important, affirmative action got me in the door but it didn't help me excel and graduate. It didn't help me gain the skills to become the journalist I am now.
As to Palin. First, vice presidents traditionally have been "affirmative action" picks in the sense that diversity of the ticket was deemed more important than their overall qualifications in general. In fact, this suggests the open definition of "qualified" in various cases. In the late 19th Century, elections for President often was determined by a couple states (including Ohio), so one practice was to pick a candidates from that state.
Regional balance is but one way to balance a ticket. McCain did not just balance his ticket with a woman, but a particular type -- one with certain reformist credentials (true or feigned), energy and social conservative bona fides. IOW, in no way is this just a gender pick, and to say as much feeds into certain talking points and promotes ignorance. "Affirmative action" and diversity comes in all shapes and sizes.
As to her qualifications, any choice can be wrong in that department. In the real world, affirmative action* (especially when broadly defined) and diversity will always be practiced in some form. When done properly, as with all things, you can't be one note about it. It's not 'any woman,' it's a qualified woman. This is not much of a lesson really, except for those (admittedly too many) who look at this subject simplistically.
Including those with key roles in national policy making.
---
* This page notes: " 'Affirmative action' means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded."
The term, like Justice Douglas' infamous astrological metaphor to describe "penumbral" constitutional rights, is open to ridicule when in fact it describes a relatively uncontroversial enterprise. "Affirmative action" here means "proactive" measures, many which are far from controversial.
For instance, if the military needs certain skills, they might seek out certain groups that traditionally were seen not as military types (including women) who might have them. Conservatives sometimes note the problems of the black underclass. Institutions, including churches, which many of them favor, might 'affirmatively" target certain groups.
Again, they don't just target everyone as individuals. Reality dictates otherwise.
[Feedback: Over in the Slate fray (my handle there is "Joe_JP"), where this originally was posted, I received a few negative (in more ways than one) replies. One misguided thread of criticism was a narrow understanding of a term that involves a myriad of efforts to deal with various groups (not just race and sex) that traditionally discriminated against and/or underrepresented. We are not just talking racial preference programs involving points or whatnot. Efforts to expand women in the military, e.g., are examples of positive action that in part take into consideration certain groups as such. Efforts to underline such breadth was deemed playing with words.
Another trite issue was "qualified," including the assumption those who benefit are unqualified and that somehow the net result does not also help society as a whole. Likewise, the term has many meanings; in a college, diversity is a qualification. Next, ignoring that other solutions -- even if ideal -- take resources society does not supply. This is what I meant by "the alternative" -- not some ideal, but reality.
Finally, that we should just treat people as individuals. Am I supposed to treat a nun or member of the KKK solely as individuals, not infer something of their character from the institutions? Are men and women just individuals, their sex/gender not relevant?]