Should social background be more of an attribute to consider when hiring?

First of all, I believe I can safely suppose that she was not chosen solely due to her ethnicity, or gender. Her other qualifications are impeccable. In general, I believe that all factors are and should be taken into consideration in a successful business.

Being the best qualified should be the ONLY consideration.

I agree with Yarnlady, this person is highly qualified for this job regardless of her ethnicity, etc.

I think the best qualified person for a job is the one who should be hired, end of story, for all jobs everywhere.

I response to the broader question, I would think that yes, in certain situations choices that take into account race and/or ethnicity could be appropriate. With that said, allow me to explain my line of thinking. If I were a manager of a store that was located in an urban environment, I would give a small preference to a candidate that would be able to relate to the customers racially/ethnically, as this would probably aid in providing service to the neighborhood.

This is not to say I would hire an unqualified but ethnically similar person (again, similar to the neighborhood the store resides in) while shunning a highly qualified “outsider”. However, it is meant to convey the idea that, in some instances, with closely matched candidates, race and/or ethnicity could be a selling point for a prospective employee.

Can a man teach a Women’s Studies class?
Can a white woman teach me about racism?
Can a person who has no knowledge of urban hip hop work at a hip hop record store?

Race, gender, class, etc. come into play for all sorts of jobs and positions.

I believe the most qualified candidate should get the job, always, regardless of the job. Supreme Court Justice, or really any political appointment is a bit different due to the fact that there is ideology involved in the selection of the candidate, which is as it should be, because politics is ABOUT ideology. But in terms of a job selection, a person should get or not get the job based on their ability to do the job and their fit within the role and the environment of the company. I do however think there are some jobs, and this is certainly one of them where qualifications/skills/experience are not all the job is about…i.e.there may be a variety of people who fit the bill, and a person’s background could help act as a tie-breaker.

Now I think there are some times where ethnicity is important, particularly in roles that serve the public interests, where perhaps all other things being equal among the pool of candidates qualified to serve in this capacity, perhaps one finds added value where one can. Breaking the glass ceiling for a certain ethnicity does indeed bring about positive social consequence, and therefore could be a factor, though it should not be the sole deciding factor in my opinion.

In other words, as it relates to this particular nomination, I would imagine there are literally dozens (if not hundreds) of judges who are qualified. Of those, I’m certain that ideological issues would make a good share of them incompatible with the President’s ideology, and that is fair, because though judiciary is not a place for activism, it is certainly fair to expect that a liberal President would wish to nominate a person with a seemingly more liberal leaning ideology inasmuch as such can be determined. Above all, a good selection should be someone who won’t let ideology ultimately conflict with the rule of law, but one who will certainly use his or her ideology to form opinions on social matters. And that is after all why we need a Supreme Court, because the world is not black and white, and we need judges to use their judgment.

And one part of judgment is perspective, consider that in the case of a court trial with a jury, we want people to be tried by a jury of their peers. In the Supreme Court, we have experts who are learned in the ways of the law, but should they not also represent the country? Should they not be peers to the American people. Wouldn’t it be appropriate for 11% of the Supreme Court to be Hispanic when a similar percentage of the country is? So it’s a valid argument at least to say that race should be a consideration.

Again it should not be the sole factor or even necessarily the deciding one, but consider that the pool of people who the President can consider is fairly small once experience and ideology are considered, and at that point, any one might be just as good as any other…at that point I think it is appropriate to look for things that distinguish a person’s candidacy, and one of those considerations could well be their social background.

But what little I know about this case, it is my understanding that Judge Sotamayor has an extremely strong Pedigree, having received high honors in an Ivy league school, and having had a long and successful career. She has actually been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans to various posts, and has been known as a fairly centrist judge ideologically speaking, which really makes it hard to see her as an activist judge one direction or the other, she seems above all fair, and that’s a great standard to hold one’s nominations too. I would suspect that in her case, her being Hispanic is more of the cherry on top of the perfect sundae. My understanding of this process is that Obama said he was NOT going to use race a preferential tool in the selection process, and that when Sotomayor requested a meeting with him, he was so impressed with the outcome of that meeting that he felt she was the right candidate.

Bottom line, I do not know to what extent race played a role in this particular decision, but I imagine it was handled appropriately, whether it was a factor at all. But as long as the candidate nominated is a fair minded, qualified individual, whether or not her race is what tipped the scales, I really don’t care all that much. I’m not a fan of relying too heavily on race in most hiring decisions, I always want the best candidate to get the job, but there can be circumstances where the difference between to candidates is so narrow that wrace actually DOES make one candidate very marginally better than the other.

Other things being equal, there is nothing wrong with the President’s choice. Surely it is not being suggested that another candidate with better qualifications was passed over because of race. At the same time, the opportunity presented itself: the climate was right for a candidate with impeccable credentials and who has the added advantage of being female and Hispanic. That is what happens in situations where politics enters the decision making process.

I’m seeing a woman who was raised by a single mother, and who graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, and was law review at Yale. What are you seeing?

Untill “race” is removed from any and all consideration, whether white black green or purple, We will not be able to move on as a properly functioning nation. We continue to live in that dark terrible past and use it as an excuse for all out ills. Forget race, lets be one people, namely AMERICANS!

In some cases (and this is one of them), I think it should matter, but only if all other qualifications are equal. The Supreme Court should be representative of the nation as a whole if it can be. A local police force is another example. If all applicants are equally able to fulfill the job requirements, an effort should be made to ensure that the group reflects the people it serves.

If diversity would enhance the job, then considering the diversity of your workforce IS important. Especially if they serve a diverse population. (Regardless of if your hiring for Supreme Court or Disneyland.)

I think it is short-minded to assume that the President, or anyone for that manner, chooses a job candidate based solely on their race or other social factor.

Of course if it is one of several determining factors then in some cases it is good to consider. For example if you are hiring a diversity coordinator you would want to know their experience with diversity. Having said that, it does not mean that someone who is not a person of color, would not qualify. I have worked in many fields and been on hiring committees for jobs that were aimed at improving diversity. Diverse candidates were recruited and considered. But they were not chosen solely because of their diversity. And other candidates, people not of color, were always considered as well. That is fair hiring practices.

I also agree with @augustlan . Many jobs need to make an effort to represent the people they serve.

Great responses all!

—

Another factor for your consideration:

The framers of the Constitution specifically setup the Executive and Legislative branches to be representative of the people. (They’re the components of our federal government that makes us a republic, a representative democracy).

However, the Judicial branch is notably different. They’re not elected by the People. They’re assigned by the representatives directly.

Does that make a difference? Should Obama’s methodology here be viewed as a way of overcoming a deficiency?

@robmandu – Re your last remark, I think that’s exactly it. Since 2 of our 3 governmental bodies are set up to be elected by the people they serve, and therefore we can expect our representatives in government to have at least the same level of “intellectual diversity” as the people it represents (though not necessarily the “physical” diversity). But when 9 are appointed, those who appoint them should look when there is a vacancy to see what areas of American life might be underrepresented. In this case I would see that perhaps there really isn’t enough Latino perspective on the high court given the percentage of the population they represent, and that doesn’t mean that the next justice has to BE Latino, but should understand the perspective of a Latino American. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the President to consider social factors to try to artificially create the diversity of perspective among the court. Again, not the only consideration, but one of many which unlike in most job appointments really is appropriate in this case.

“Being the best qualified should be the ONLY consideration.”

Well, that leaves Obama out.

@ChazMaz – true, Obama is definitely not the best qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Or President for that matter.

Yes, because Bush was SO much better (and more qualified).

Hahahahahaahhahahahhahahahahah….cough, ahem.

Last I checked, the only constitituional requirement for being President was being 35, btw