More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dr. Boyce Watkins

Dr. Boyce Watkins

Posted: May 18, 2010 09:58 AM

Five Reasons Why Elena Kagan Is Bad for Black People and America

What's Your Reaction:

2010-05-18-elenakagansupremecourtobamajpg80785f2f6cb68647_large300x183.jpg

I don't have an agenda other than one which represents the people who support me. My supporters are typically black and brown people across America who simply want the truth (although I appreciate support from people who are not black or brown). So, without the political spin, demographic juggling or calculated strategy to protect connections in Washington, I am going to tell you exactly why this is the first time in my life that I've fought so strongly against a Supreme Court nominee.

Elena Kagan is bad for America, bad for black America, bad for academia and represents the very worst of what we stand for as a nation. If this sounds exceedingly dramatic, then please note that I do not consider myself to be a dramatic person, especially when it comes to the relatively boring world of American politics. Here are five reasons that Elena Kagan is bad for America and black people alike, and why the left won't ever talk about it:

1) A lack of educational diversity.

With the confirmation of Elena Kagan, Harvard and Yale graduates will hold 8 out of 9 of the Supreme Court seats. The other seat belongs to Ruth Bader Ginsburg (set to retire soon), who graduated from another Ivy League institution, Columbia University. Even Ginsburg started her legal studies at Harvard and transferred to Columbia when her husband took a new job. All of our nation's presidents for the past 28 years have also been from Harvard or Yale, creating a dangerous aristocracy that threatens to destroy our nation's commitment to freedom and opportunity.

2) A lack of religious diversity.

I am not a bible-thumper, but I couldn't help but notice an interesting fact: With the confirmation of Elena Kagan, the court will have no Protestant representation. This is odd, given that over half our nation is Protestant. Additionally, the Jewish community will have 1/3 of the Supreme Court seats, although they represent only 2% of our nation's population. Catholics, who are 24% of our nation, will hold 66% of the seats. Yes, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, but give me a break, politicians are always in church, the protection of Israel is always at the top of the president's agenda and there are often Supreme Court decisions which affect the way we worship. Not that any of this is wrong, but it should be considered for what it is. Once again, I am not a bible-thumper, so I'll let the various religious factions fight that one out.

3) A lack of ethnic diversity.

Before she died, the late Dorothy Height told our first black president, Barack Obama, that black women deserve to be represented in all chambers of government, including the Supreme Court. In its 221-year history, the Supreme Court has never had an ounce of African American female representation. Once again, black women were passed over in favor of a Caucasian with connections. Insult is added to injury when we consider the fact that during her tenure as dean of the Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan hired 29 tenure track faculty members, with 28 of them being white. This just happened to change in the middle of the controversy, when Harvard Law School hired only its second black female tenured professor in history. I am sure the Harvard Law faculty are patting themselves on the back for this one: two black women in nearly 300 years of existence. Great work Harvard University, you've had two more black female members than the Ku Klux Klan.

4) Is cronyism much different from corruption?

When the army of black male Harvard Law Professors came out to support the nomination of Elena Kagan, I noticed that a) the one black female in the Harvard Law School at the time (Lani Guinier) didn't follow suit, and b) nearly all of the men defending this ambiguously-qualified woman were from Harvard University. Given that our President also went to Harvard and taught at U. Chicago (like Kagan), one can see that this is a very public exercise of intellectual inbreeding that starts and ends in the cozy section of Martha's Vineyard. We the people are not being represented by this nomination. This part of the dog and pony show is all about maintaining disproportionately powerful social circles and helping them to control the world. Neither "hope" nor "change" is being represented in this move by Obama, since being non-Ivy means that you can never hope to be on the Supreme Court, and the elitism isn't being changed in the least by our nation's first black president.

5) Kagan is simply not the best person for the job.

Elena Kagan's weak litigation experience made her a poor choice for Solicitor General. During her tenure at Harvard, she was unable to find creative ways to diversify the tenured or tenure-track faculty. She wasn't able or willing to include under-represented minorities on her staff as Solicitor General (not hiring a single black or brown person during her time there). She has also shown little evidence that she possesses the intellectual fire power and/or cultural competency to fill the large shoes of retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens. She is a bad choice for the Supreme Court and all the liberals know it. Since they are afraid to say it out in public, then perhaps my words can be liberating. Kagan will probably be confirmed, since these decisions are usually made long before the rest of us get involved. But it doesn't hurt to fight like hell anyway.

This post was originally published on Race-Talk

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 222
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
09:29 PM on 05/20/2010
I liked this article and thought your points were all dead on. Yes, I know the argument is that we should want people who are the brightest and I agree - I just don't think only Harvard and Yale turn out brilliant people but they both sure as hell turn out more than their fair share of privileged, connected people.

I also think liberals and Democrats grudgingly accepting her is more indiative of low standards then anything else. Our Democrat President is countering Alito and Scalia with this underperforming milquetoast, why?
10:12 PM on 05/19/2010
Elena Kagan represents the "very worst of what we stand for as a nation?" If that were actually true, then we'd be one hell of a nation. Of course, it's not true and, like the other claims in this article, is not substantiated by anything written by this finance professor with no legal background.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:30 PM on 05/19/2010
Let's try this again to see if I can get it past the moderators.

Keli Goff, just yesterday and on this very website, described you analysis in point #2 as being racist and unprotected speech when it was written by Pat Buchanan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/elena-kagan-pat-buchanan_b_579623.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:08 PM on 05/19/2010
I noticed that too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 05/19/2010
Keli Goff called Pat Buchanan a racist for saying exactly what you said in point #2.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theRealAmerica
bruised,battered and scarred...but hard
02:08 PM on 05/20/2010
While no one has called him a racist, I've yet to see anyone defend what he said. I'm not sure what your point is...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPETERB
12:13 PM on 05/19/2010
I agree with your general points regarding Ms. Kagan's lack of outstanding policy qualifications and the 'more of the same' record of promoting the financially and politically well connected to additional positions of private power and public authority. Except for her just criticism of the Bush/Gore decision, she has kept to the muddle (not a typo) on most public policy issues. There are many better qualified candidates that have been unaccountably passed over. A critical miss-step by a Rahm Emanuel managed administration of few significant incremental changes and more significant false promises.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
time4change2009
12:02 PM on 05/19/2010
Stop hatin' Doc.. Wrong again !
10:10 AM on 05/19/2010
I find your posts interesting, and noteworthy, but honestly, I'm okay with anyone so long as they aren't another corporation-loving conservative.

If there's a black, female candidate from UT of whatever that matches that, great, I'd support her too. But as far as I'm concerned the only question of note is if she cares more about the American people, or American businesses.
photo
voyager48
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
11:34 AM on 05/19/2010
I agree - it is double standards. Everyone got behind Sotomayor on the basis that she was Hispanic and a woman. If that was so important to get diversity int the system then why woudl they not continue to seek diversity. There have to a good number of perfectly well qualified people out there. this smacks of cronyism.
11:56 AM on 05/19/2010
Sotomayor's actually what's gotten me paranoid about the issue.

She brings some diversity, sure, but she's pro-corporate! All that 'empathy' talk was pure and complete bullshit, she's a corporate tool.

If "cronyism" here means "Obama knows she's NOT a rabid conservative", then she meets my one and only requirement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
politicalgenius
Mr. Too School for Cool
10:03 AM on 05/19/2010
I've read this article 3 times to see if I could find what about Kagan makes her bad for Black people. Cl@rence Thomas being on the SCOTUS is actually more damaging to Blacks than the nomination of Kagan. Even if the POTUS nominated a Black female for this position, we'd still only have 1 Black on SCOTUS - **looking right at Cl@rence Thomas**
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:28 AM on 05/19/2010
Justice Thomas isn't authentically black enough for you? It is because you disagree with his position on some issues or does he not fit the stereotype you have in mind for black men? Are there people of other ethnicities that aren't really their race in your opinion or is your contempt reserved for black people?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
noladebby
02:11 AM on 05/20/2010
Clarence Thomas is not popular in the black community because he does not represent the interests of our community:civil rights, poverty, and economic injustice, etc.
09:47 AM on 05/19/2010
Only time will tell whether she is a true progressive or not?

Earl Warren was the Republican governor of CA and was appointed by a republican president Eisenhower but turned out to be one of the most Liberal Chief Justices in history.

John Paul Stevens the retiring Justice that Kagen is being considered to replace, was a republican appointed by a republican president Ford but he turned out to be quite liberal.

So it is very difficult to predict accurately how a Justice will rule once they are approved to that lifetime job with no threat of being voted out or fired.

Although we can get some inkling into how a nominee will rule from the bench it is impossible to know for sure. Lets hope we have a progressive winner in Elena Kagan?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
10:35 AM on 05/19/2010
Stevens swears he is a conservative still, that the insane right has pulled his party out of sync with true conservative principles.

J
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skeptiqone
09:41 AM on 05/19/2010
Aside from not being Black, I never got to the part where she would be bad for black people. I trust the President on this.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
desidid
08:45 AM on 05/19/2010
I agree with everything Dr. Watkins said however I would been happy to see Goodwin Yiu on the high court because Asians are also not represented. The court should represent the people who populate the country. The more diverse in race, region, school, gender, and religion the better. The justices should be persuading their colleagues with their arguments, and that isn't necessary when you have so many cookie cutter judges.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
politicalgenius
Mr. Too School for Cool
03:49 PM on 05/19/2010
I actually agree that it would have been nice to see Yiu, however, there is no mandate for religious diversity. That flirts with the line of having to pass a test of faith/religion to hold office in this country, something the founders didn't want. There are 9, lifetime seats, obviously not everyone is going to be happy with who the POTUS picks. But Ilike someone else on here wrote, aside from not being Black, how is she bad for Black people? This article & it's five points are on their face(s) biased & racist.

It's as if he's writing about having a Black women on the court for the sake of having a Black women on the court. Who are/were the Black female candidates? As a Black male, I'd like to see a Black male on the court because we haven't had one since Justice Marshall
photo
Vlady
Better Late
11:44 PM on 05/19/2010
What about representing dolphins and grizzly bears populating this country?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
politicalgenius
Mr. Too School for Cool
08:26 AM on 05/19/2010
As a Black man this article is insulting. So, because Kagan is a white-female Black people should riot? This is another overreaction & a reach for controversy. What about Asians, we don't have any Asians on the SCOTUS. I don't follow the careers of appelate judges or SGs or lawyers period, but, since Kagan is sooooooooo bad for 'us poor lil colored folk' then someone please give me the top 3 black female judges who should have been vetted that meet the 5 criteria above.

Find the Black female judge who was COGIC (Church of God in Christ) or Pentacostal, attended an HBCU for law school, not married to a Black male, has at least 8-degrees of separation between she & the POTUS, and who is "simply the best person for the job"

It's Black people like this guy who can't decide whether they want our race to live only as a "movement" and not as citizens. I'm not saying that Black people have "made it", not by any means, but as long as people like this guy have selective, opportunistic outrage at so-called problems without offering the slightest solution, we'll never move forward.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
desidid
08:48 AM on 05/19/2010
I like the play on words with your sign on name.
SouthernBlueBelle
Old and fed up
08:12 AM on 05/19/2010
With the exception of the last reason, they appear to be bias only reasons. Now I agree I would have preferred a black woman (I am white BTW) but that would be reverse discrimination, ditto on religion, and then complaining that we are picking to many from the BEST SCHOOLS! ridiculous. That is were the best & brightest go!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
desidid
08:39 AM on 05/19/2010
Then the addition of another white person must just be standard discrimination. Which you don't seem to see in the reverse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
05:08 AM on 05/19/2010
Barack Obama won his election because of a unique coalition within the dem party. Young people, Women, Hispanics, and African Americans. We have reached the point where, politically, there needs to be some tangible opportunity for African American's and our issues out of the administration. Black votes are essential for the dem party to win elections in the North East, the south, and the midwest. Not just black votes but massive amounts of black votes, insane percentages of black votes. 98 percent of blacks voted for Obama. With 90 percent voting instead Obama loses IN, NC, FL. With 80 voting we lose NY, DE, PA, OH, VA, NJ. When you deliver states you get a seat at the table. When you deliver multiple states you get access to crafting the agenda. There are more more blacks in the cabinet than ever before, more blacks in senior staff than ever before, all positive things. Access is power in D.C. but the court is legacy. Obama is going to get 2 more seats on the court. Ginsberg's seat is going this term. Filling it is important and there are consequences for the party and for the administration if they don't take articles like this seriously. We sat quietly while Sotomayor went first. We'll take Kagan because we have to, But no black hires for the SG's office after the Harvard situation is a real problem. No hiring committees or offer sheet arguments there.
06:57 AM on 05/19/2010
Who are the top three Black people in line for the next supreme court position? Instead of articles like the one above I would like to see articles highlighting those who are qualified and why they would have been better than Kagan. IMO, Kagan is a done deal.
Who is next in line?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
10:28 AM on 05/19/2010
First off let me say this. You are completely right. The Kagan ship sailed. It would cause a civil war to upend her nomination now. But articles like this one are rallying points to push people for the Ginsberg nomination. Here are three of the many qualified vibrant brilliant black women who would be an asset to the court.

Leah Ward Sears - Youngest member of the Georgia Supreme court
http://www.schiffhardin.com/news_051309.htm

Lani Guinier - here areas of concentration are:
* Access to Higher Education
* Critical Perspectives on Race, Gender, and Class
* Law and Social Change
* Racetalks Initiatives
* Responsibilities of Public Lawyers
* Voting Rights and Democratic Theory
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=24

Ann Claire Williams, a U.S. Circuit Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and Massachusetts

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/womenandjustice/aboutus/whoweare/steering/williams.cfm
03:01 AM on 05/19/2010
So somehow because Kagan isn't a "black female", she is somehow bad for black people? This assertion is ludicrous on its face. Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has a black Justice already, would you consider that his appointment was “good for black people”?
Additionally, in regards to civil rights in our country, history has shown us that individuals of the Jewish faith have long been devoted allies in the struggle for equality. To somehow claim that because Kagan is Jewish should serve to disqualify her, is to forget, or ignore, this fact. From the beginning of his administration, President Obama has indicated that he will represent all Americans. As a black American, I feel that for him to do anything less would be a disservice to us all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
04:50 AM on 05/19/2010
No, the fact that in her last two positions, Harvard Dean and SG she seems incapable of finding one qualified black or brown person to fill ANY position, means she is bad for black people. Imagine the reverse. That Kagan went to Harvard and hired ONLY black and brown professors. 29 hires all Black. When to the SG offices and hired ONLY black lawyers. Completely and totally possible. What would you and others like you say about that?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
desidid
08:52 AM on 05/19/2010
Who is the black person on the Supreme Court (just kidding, but does he consider himself black)? And it is funny that all the rest of the justices are white, and you don't think that is lucdicrious in a multiracial country. Please don't tell me Sotomayor is Hispanic because she is also white. You can be both.
09:27 AM on 05/19/2010
Why does a SC justice need to be any specific, color, religion or sex. The best most qualified person in the President's opinion should be nominated. I don't believe Kagan is that person but it is the President's choice. Justice is supposed to be blind to demographic factors and focus on the law. The actual question should be how does she interpret the law?