Re "Bush's Court-Nominee 'Diversity' Is a Cynical Ploy," Commentary, Nov. 2: Robert Harris states that Miguel Estrada was "hostile to the positions of most Latino organizations" but fails to note that most Latino political organizations are far to the left of most Latinos. On issues like homosexual marriage and abortion, for example, the organizations in question are much closer to the "politically correct" positions than most Latinos.
Harris won't admit it, but Estrada was a victim of his willingness to stand for values held dear by the Latino community, and because he would not sell out, as most Latino organizations have done, they joined in attacking him.
Larry A. Carstens
The apple does not fall far from the tree. Giving the appearance of diversity to suggest a more moderate centrist philosophy -- while maintaining a far-right agenda -- was given its great national debut in the first Bush administration. The unforgettable Senate hearings and subsequent appointment of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the "bait and switch" of Republican politics, elevating a hardly qualified candidate to the highest court in the country by using his minority status as a weapon against criticism.
Thomas' subsequent actions on the court have surprised no one and only underscored his lack of judicial acumen. Though few were fooled, he was nonetheless approved by a Senate hungry to demonstrate its support for diversity. That is the ultimate strength of George W. Bush's appallingly cynical political policies. Let's hope this Congress will recognize the game and not be as intimidated.
Harris demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the left. He decries the views of Bush's appointees to the federal bench as outside the mainstream and not reflective of the ethnic groups from which the judges originate. How pathetic to see the truth laid bare that the left cares only about diversity of skin color or gender but cringes at the notion of independent thought. When Harris states that minority appointees ought to reflect the values of their particular ethnic groups, isn't he really marginalizing those very groups he seeks to champion?
I thought that part of the goal of diversity was to understand that we are all individuals first.