Tracy Thorne-Begland and the Mishnory Road

Discriminating in favor of members of a certain class is only slightly superior to discriminating against them.


As a rule, appointments to state general district courts do not make national headlines. So the nationwide uproar that ensued last week when the Virginia General Assembly shot down the nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland because he is gay has the look about it of a watershed moment. The question now is whether the lesson drawn will be narrow or broad.

The narrow lesson seems clear: Rejecting a nominee because of sexual orientation has become scarcely more acceptable than rejecting one because of race. It is clear that the social conservatives who kept Thorne-Begland off the bench did so because of his homosexuality. Yet nearly no one is willing to defend that on its own terms. Even those who opposed Thorne-Begland justified their position with mendacious rationalizations about his ostensible oath-breaking, his activism for gay rights, and so on.

They did not fool anyone. And even the state's leading conservatives have distanced themselves from the vote. Gov. Bob McDonnell insisted that "these ought to be merit-based selections solely based on a person's skill, ability, fairness, judicial temperament." Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling agreed, saying through a spokesman that he "has always believed that judicial appointments should be made on the basis of merit and qualification, and no other consideration." Former Sen. George Allen and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli both said the same as well.

That also was the view taken by those on the other side of the aisle. Del. Donald McEachin, who said "the only criteria legislators should apply when selecting judges are that person's ability to fairly and impartially weigh the law. Mr. Thorne-Begland's qualifications for appointment to the bench were unimpeachable, but Republicans cynically voted against his appointment just because he was gay."  Del. Joseph Yost agreed: "I don't think that a person's sexual orientation should come into play when someone's a candidate for the bench." So did The Washington Post, which said "the Republicans' opposition boiled down to old-fashioned prejudice." Others expressed similar views. 

An editorial headline in the Lynchburg News & Advance summed up the new consensus: "Ability, and Nothing More, Should Be What Matters."

But when liberals get done congratulating themselves for their moral superiority over the troglodyte right – which is not exactly a high bar to clear – they might hold the Thorne-Begland mirror up to their own side as well. They have just finished insisting on a principle that undercuts the case for one of their most cherished notions: diversity.

Diversity has nothing to do with qualifications, and everything to do with traits. It subordinates merit to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Consider the accusation, frequently heard, that various institutions "lack diversity." (Recent examples include executive hiring, the HBO show "Girls," the Obama campaign staff, the Facebook board of directors, Federal Reserve banks' boards of directors, and so on.) This is not a complaint about ability, judgment, virtue, or any other measure of worth or value. It is simply a census of various traits.

Recall too the assertion, presented as if it were an argument, that the congressional panel on contraception and religious freedom earlier this year – the one that made Sandra Fluke famous – was all-male. "Where are the women?" demanded Rep. Carolyn Maloney. We all know why she and so many others asked that question: the belief that a woman would bring a perspective that the men could not. Now ask yourself what sort of assumptions are embedded in that belief.

Nearly all universities stress the importance of diversity in the student body, and many corporations emphasize the importance of having a diverse workforce. By this they refer not to a wide range of talents, abilities, and perspectives. They refer to a wide range of races, ethnicities, faiths, genders and sexual orientations.

The academic environment seethes with attention to immutable traits. Google "minority scholarships" or "gay scholarships" or "LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] resource center" or "queer studies" for a few thousand examples. And while merit plays a role in some cases, it is ancillary to the main focus: what a person is, rather than what he or she has done or can do.

Now there is a distinction to be drawn here. Appointing someone – hiring someone – voting for someone – because he or she is black, or gay, or what have you is not on an equal plane with turning someone down for such a reason. The former is an affirmation, the latter a rejection.

Yet while the motives and effects are different, the underlying act is fundamentally the same. If it is wrong, as McEachin and others quite correctly insist, to oppose someone "just because he is gay," it also is wrong to support someone just because he is gay. Or black, or a woman. In both cases, the individual is treated not as an individual – but as an indistinguishable unit of a collective that is identified by a particular trait. If traits should not count against someone – if ability and nothing else matters – then they should not count for someone, either.

In her science-fiction classic The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin writes, "They say here `all roads lead to Mishnory.' To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk a different road."

We are still on the Mishnory road. Discriminating in favor of members of a certain class may be slightly superior to discriminating against them. But even when the motives are right, treating individuals differently because of their immutable traits is still wrong.

NEXT: Another Federal Judge Strikes Down the Defense of Marriage Act

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not sure discriminating in favour of someone is even “slightly superior”. If Person X who is gay and Person Y who is not both apply for a job and I hire Person X only because he is gay have I not discriminated against Person Y because he is not gay?

    1. I don’t know, what race is Person Y.

    2. No, because gays are a protected class of people, and straights are not. I think it is the Civil Rights Act that lists the protected classes.

    3. I’m completely sure it’s not even “slightly superior”. Any more than committing a non-racially motivated crime is “slightly superior” to committing a racially motivated crime (the basis for amplified punishment in “hate crimes” laws).

  2. To be fair, I don’t think it’s possible that a gay judge could be impartial. You know they’re always going to let the defense win because they just love ‘bad boys’.
    It’s the same reason we don’t have any women judges.

    1. Uh, thanks for that highly uninformed comment, WG. The guy is a prosecutor and highly respected by the po-po (trans: lots of convictions). Which is not to fall into lockstep with our Heroes in Blue (Hi, Dunphy).

      1. The joke.

        Your head.

      2. Despite your completely missing Whiterun Guard’s point, I’ll have to respond to the rest of your post.

        I think it’s ironic that the copsucking soCons booted their jackbooted ally in copsucking, because he was gay.

      3. OK, Sorry I missed the joke, WG.

        BD: good point in your second paragraph.

  3. “Where are the women?” demanded Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Idiot Congress

    “Where are the white women at?” demanded Sheriff. Bart. Blazing Saddles

    1. The Sheriff was just inquiring about the lack of diversity in the Rock Ridge railroad crew.

      1. He even made ’em take the chinks!

  4. We all know why she and so many others asked that question: the belief that a woman would bring a perspective that the men could not.

    The “different perspective” argument tends to set off my bullshit meter. We’ve all been in situations where the people were diverse by sex, race, geography, and what have you, but in which they all thought exactly alike.

    1. Coffee shops around every major university?

  5. All my liberal friends tell me you have to treat people differently in order to treat them equally. It’s, like, in the 30th Amendment or something.

  6. Do any of those traits, immutable or not, also lead to different understandings?

    If there is any good reason to have someone of color informing a council devoted to investigating racial injustice, wouldn’t it also make sense to have at least one person of color on a council designed to promulgate laws in the first place, to avoid such problems?

    You are right, in general, the most qualified person is usually the best bet, but the cookie cutter problem exists, where if you have 5 identically great people, and 1 other voice, it doesn’t serve anyone to choose the 5 for a panel, you might as well only have 1 person.

    Sorry, lots of novocaine in me.

    1. I may not have gotten an A+ in Physics in college, but I know this much: black is the total absence of color, and white is the presence of all colors. So WTF is this “someone of color” bullshit, anyway?

      1. I really don’t have time to go into Quantum Electrodynamics with you, but I can at least provide you with the great Physicist, and Manhattan Project hero, Richard Feynman’s algorithm for any tough problem:

        Write down the problem.
        Think real hard.
        Write down the solution.

        If you have any trouble with those, be sure to ask someone else for help. Douchebags like you seem beyond hopeless.

    2. BD, “person of color” is liberal code for accredited victim. Just like “white hispanic” is code for technically a member of a minority, but not entitled to victim status.

      1. You mean, “legally compelled to just shut the fuck up and die, when his head is smashed against the concrete by an urban youth?” This shit has gone WAY past just bending over backwards to provide job opportunities…

  7. down the nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland because he is gay has the look about it of a watershed moment. The question now is whether the lesson drawn will be narrow or broad

  8. The quantity of revenue of sunglasses is straight proportional towards the quantity of dollars invested on their advertisement. within their bid to outdo every other, the custom homes devote mind-blowing bucks on advertising and marketing their products. The inevitable outcome is definitely a sharp increase in costs of Wholesale Sunglasses

  9. One of the issues which should be presented as a strong reason against this sort of diversity is the way that other more qualified people of the same class which is getting pushed into the position in question often get overlooked in the rush to promote anybody from that class.

    The elephant in the room here is the outcome of 2008 presidential election. ?did I just write that?

  10. The old adage your footwear requires; does not hold real truth. The footwear need to fit appropriate along with comfortably from the first move. If you are uncomfortable or your foot slides all around within the shoe, you almost certainly have the wrong size or style.Nine. Check yourself out. Should really you be trying your Spring Move sneakers on while in a storefront, you can test on that sneakers on and go walking to a mirror. How do you look in the reflect? Are you satisfied with your way of living?By following this easy checklist, you will be able to have the suitable Spring…..24_26.html Move shoes for your living and vocation. You will be comfortable saving on your own considerable time and money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.