by
Kevin
Lamarque-Pool/Getty
Images)
In
the
backlash
against
DEI,
someone
has
to
champion
a
legal
defense
that
will
prevent
us
from
spiraling
toward
a
monoculture.
Who
better
than
than
one
of
the
justices
that
oversaw
the
arguments
against
affirmative
action?
Justice
Jackson
is
no
stranger
to
diversity
—
she
got
a
lot
of
attention
for
her
historically
informed
reading
of
the
14th
amendment.
But
she’s
also
very
attentive
to
something
else:
the
country’s
demographics.
Bloomberg
Law
was
able
to
capture
some
of
her
thoughts
on
diversity’s
place
in
the
rule
of
law
and
the
general
public’s
confidence
in
it:
“To
the
extent
that
the
law
is
governing
behavior,
and
it
is
of
the
citizenry
at
large,
it
instills
confidence
in
the
rule
of
law
when
the
people
who
are
governed
by
it
understand
that
the
judiciary
and
the
people
who
are
interpreting
it
come
from
different
walks
of
life…things
that
we
can
do
to
instill
public
confidence,
are
very
important.
Having
a
variety
of
people
engaged
in
the
activity
of
being
judges
is
something
that
instills
confidence.”
If
you’ve
read
SFFA
v.
Harvard,
the
confidence
argument
should
ring
familiar.
The
case
is
largely
known
for
striking
down
affirmative
action
in
higher
ed,
but
the
decision
carved
out
an
exception
for
military
academies
to
continue
with
the
practice.
The
Court
reasoned
that
the
government
may
have
in
interest
in
having
people
in
positions
of
authority
that
represent
the
demographics
of
the
troops
that
they
lead.
And
while
the
decision
was
largely
limited
to
that
example,
it
isn’t
hard
to
imagine
times
when
diversity
(or
a
lack
thereof)
is
glaringly
obvious
and
could
be
a
reason
for
public
distrust.
Just
think
about
the
hesitancy
many
people
felt
upon
realizing
that
the
lawyers
defending
Ahmaud
Arbery’s
killers
were
really
pushing
for
an
all
white
jury
or
how
worried
people
have
been
about
flying
since
“gutting
DEI”
was
quickly
followed
with
planes
kissing
the
ground
prematurely:
There’s
no
guarantee
that
a
diverse
judiciary
will
prevent
the
evils
of
racism
from
being
played
out
in
court
rooms,
but
I
do
wonder
if
there
have
there
been
any
Black
or
Latino
judges
whose
allergy
medicines
caused
them
to
blurt
out
slurs.
Better
yet,
would
the
story
of
the
judge
who
handed
out
criminal
records
to
hundreds
of
black
boys
over
a
made
up
crime
played
out
differently
if
the
judge
were
a
Black
woman
instead
of
a
White
one?
The
truth
is
that
communities
care
who
wields
the
gavel,
and
we
may
be
better
off
if
and
when
the
one
calling
order
to
the
court
is
a
member
of
a
minority
group.
As
it
stands,
DEI
appears
to
be
on
the
way
out.
But
it
need
not
be
—
properly
tailored
arguments
that
focus
on
foundational
notions
for
democracies
like
legitimacy
may
push
the
discourse
in
a
direction
that
is
constitutionally
justified.
Probably
not.
But
it’s
worth
a
shot.
Jackson
Defends
Court
Diversity
as
Boost
to
‘Public
Confidence’
[Bloomberg
Law]
Earlier:
15
of
The
16
Potential
Jurors
In
The
Ahmaud
Arbery
Trial
Are
White.
Problem?
Judge
Jails
Children
For
Just
Standing
There…
Menacingly
On
This
Week’s
Episode
Of
Judicial
Misconduct:
Percocet
Slurs?
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.