Crossposted at The Politicizer
Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court has exposed a deep-seeded bitterness in white America. From respected legal analysts like Jeffrey Rosen to incendiary conservatives like Pat Buchanan, this embittered segment of white America has tried to establish a parallel between Sotomayor’s qualifications and those of failed Bush appointee Harriett Miers. These persistent questions about Sotomayor’s qualifications, however, are largely rooted in white America’s automatic assumption that a successful non-White is nothing more than an affirmative action baby.
Sonia Sotomayor would not be where she is today if Princeton University’s admissions office failed to see any value in diversifying its lily white student body. Racial minorities like Sonia Sotomayor and her contemporaries should be proud of initiating the ongoing struggle to integrate higher education. This march towards racial diversity does not overshadow the academic potential of college applicants. To suggest otherwise is preposterous and Sonia Sotomayor’s summa cum laude Bachleor’s Degree speaks louder to this than any written explanation I can articulate.
Nonetheless, the preposterous suspicion of successful minorities persists. Last week, Pat Buchanan beat this drum for embittered white America on the Rachel Maddow Show. In his interview, Buchanan berated Sotomayor for a June 11th interview in which she told the New York Times that she was "a product of affirmative action" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11judge.html). It was vintage Pat Buchanan. He reduced Sotomayor to an "affirmative action baby" and declared that Obama appointed her simply because she is a Latina.
Men like Pat Buchanan, however, fail to recognize and appreciate the benefits that they have reaped from the college admissions process. Born into a middle class Washington D.C. family, Buchanan attended prestigious private Catholic schools until gaining admittance to Georgetown University. While Sonia Sotomayor’s identity as a Latina helped her get into Princeton, Buchanan’s birth into an idyllic middle class family afforded him with an infinitely greater advantage. In the college admissions process, birthright affords wealthier students like Buchanan with an enormous advantage and arguably functions as the most important determinant in the process. In essence, Buchanan is the very kind of affirmative action baby that he abhors.
Furthermore, Buchanan must understand that giving an underrepresented racial minority a chance at a college education is merely one type of non-academic preference that college admissions offices take into account. As an applicant from one of the most underrepresented states at Georgetown University, my own experiences attest to the reality that admissions offices value geographic diversity in the same way that they value racial and ethnic diversity. A college’s reasons for promoting geographic diversity correspond to affirmative action’s aim to increase ethnic diversity on America’s campuses. In the same way that Sotomayor’s experiences as a Latina woman contribute to a University environment, the way in which my experiences as an Oklahoman contribute to a school with a predominantly White and wealthy student body.
If race was the dominant determinant in the college admissions process, I’d definitely be joining the chorus of skeptics that draw upon Sotomayor’s admittance to Princeton to criticize her merits. But race is merely a consideration that factors into a holistic process that benefits everyone by creating a more diverse college community.