American Meritocracy in the Age of Identity Politics

An e-mail to me the other day from an old friend asked the pertinent question of

whether Protestants were under represented on the United States Supreme Court

(SCOTUS). Membership on the court, a lifetime appointment, is probably one of the

most prestigious positions in the United States, not just in the government, but indeed

in all of society.

This letter to me was written in response to the previous post on when the power of the

President ends. President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the vacancy

created by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The previous post was

written with regard to the current debate of whether a President, whose term is ending

in several months, should have the right to nominate someone to a lifetime position.

Justice Ginsburg was of the Jewish faith and Judge Barrett is a devout Catholic.

Current SCOTUS membership consists of two Jewish members and five or six Catholic

members. The religion of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is unclear as he was raised as

a Catholic but for many years has been a member of an Episcopal Church. It, of

course, is highly personal to Justice Gorsuch which religion he and is family choose to

practice, but for the purposes of religion, he can certainly be characterized as being

Christian. Until Justice Gorsuch’s appointment to the Court in 2017, there had been no

member of the court who could be described as Protestant. The last member of that

faith was Justice John Paul Stevens who resigned in 2010 due to his age. Assuming

that Judge Barrett is confirmed, there would then be six or seven members of SCOTUS

who identify as members of the Catholic faith. Therefore we may ask are Protestants

under represented on the Court?

There are two answers, representing two radically different views of America.

Approximately seventy-five percent of Americans identify as Protestants, twenty-one

percent as Catholics and one to two percent as Jewish. The U.S. census asks no

question about religion in its surveys. However, in recent years, for reasons beyond the

scope of this essay, identity politics has seized center stage in the United States.

Diversity and inclusiveness has become the order of the day, in school and college

admissions, employment and housing opportunity and economic opportunity. I do not

propose at this time to discuss this issue other than to say that this is in serious conflict

with the idea of the “melting pot” and assimilation into American culture and nationality.

This term was actually the title of a play by Israel Zang will in 1908 and was endorsed at

that time by President Theodore Roosevelt. The population of the United States until

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-

Cellar) in New York Harbor in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, was predominantly of

European ancestry. The 1965 act abolished the national origin and quota features of

the previous immigration laws and opened up America to people of all nationalities,

races and creeds. People came from all over the world with varying degrees of

education, language and labor skills. Accommodation was made for the new …

immigrants with many of the provisions of Johnson’s Great Society legislation,

including for the first time, bilingual education in many different languages. While this

may be applauded by many, there is no question that assimilation of new immigrants

into American culture has been retarded. Multi culture is another new term which now

exists in American society.

Well, with all of the above, American meritocracy quo vadis? If a certain number of

positions, in the name of affirmative action or equal opportunity must be put aside for

certain classified groups just what does this mean for individuals rather than groups?

Has group membership become the defining factor in American life and achievement

rather than what an individual personally may accomplish? This, to me sounds rather

heinous, if not horrible and inimical to American society, history and ethics. All agree

that there should be equality of opportunity and non discrimination, but in seeking

group results aren’t we doing just the opposite, namely discriminating? A number of

cases have reached SCOTUS regarding this subject with varying decisions.

So are Protestants under represented on SCOTUS? The idea that there should be

Catholic seats, Jewish seats, Latino seats, Protestant seats, and Black seats has

become part of institutional belief in the United States. To me, this is wrong. Judges,

doctors, lawyers and indeed any other occupation or profession should be filled by the

best and most qualified people possible. Whether that person is of any particular

ethnicity, race or religion should be irrelevant in our society. Individual achievement

must be the paramount determinant in filling a position, no matter how high or how low.

Thus there is no under representation of Protestants. John F. Kennedy, in his 1960

presidential campaign address this issue in a speech to the Houston Ministerial

Association. a Protestant group. There is, indeed, no room for discrimination. Fairness

and justice for all must be the order of the day. And we expect and demand that all

should be able to achieve the most they are capable of. Beyond that, no position

belongs to anyone on the basis of belonging to a particular group.

For those interested in further information on this topic, I recommend reading “Who Are

We-The Challenge to America’s National Identity.” by Samuel P. Huntington. Professor

Huntington was a professor of political science at Harvard University. The

recommended book was published by Simon and Schuster in 2004.

Garry S. Sklar

Las Vegas, NV

October 1, 2020