To be or not to be [brilliant]

Judge Kavanaugh is in line to replace Justice Kennedy on the US Supreme Court. The nomination dance is about to begin in full force. Critics will raise questions about past cases, judicial temperament, law and the judicial role; and supporters will point to his past accomplishments and the judge’s professed belief in judicial restraint [and general support of conservative causes and ideas]. There is one fact upon which critics and supporters will agree: he is brilliant. Not smart; not clever; not bright; not astute.

BRILLIANT (and yes, I pulled out a thesaurus for help).

This post is a confession on my part. I don’t know what “brilliance” means. I’ve met a lot of brilliant people in my life, but the reason I know they are brilliant is because they tell me so, or others tell me in their stead. And as soon I think I have a handle on what it means, one of our esteemed justices retires and I am back to square one. Let me explain.

Judge Kavanaugh is brilliant, which we know because we are told incessantly. What exactly qualifies him for the distinction is less clear. Here’s what we know: he is a graduate of Georgetown Prep, Yale College and Yale Law School; clerked for Judge Kozinski and Justice Kennedy; worked for the Justice Department and the White House; was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis; and served as judge on D.C. Circuit since 2006. He clearly checks all the boxes for a seat on the Court. But that’s not the question. The question is, is he brilliant, and what makes him so? I can’t tell.

For another recent example, consider Justice Gorsuch. Same story: Georgetown prep, Columbia University, Harvard law, and a Marshall Scholarship at Oxford, where he earned a degree in legal philosophy; clerkships with Judge Sentelle and Justices White and Kennedy; DOJ; judge in the 10th Circuit since 2006. And also brilliant.

So here’s what I have: brilliance lies in elite academic achievements and fancy clerkships and jobs post-graduation. That is, Harvard and Yale graduates are brilliant; lawyers at DOJ and the White House are brilliant; circuit court judges are brilliant. Or in fairness, maybe is the confluence of all of these. So a brilliant person is one with Harvard, plus fancy clerkships, plus a DOJ position, plus a judgeship on his resume. That must be it.

But then I go back to the spring and summer of 2009 and the nomination of Justice Sotomayor. To refresh our memories: Sotomayor was born in the Bronx of parents both born in Puerto Rico. She attended Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx and was valedictorian of her graduating class; attended Princeton University on a full scholarship and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa; and attended Yale Law School. She was an assistant district attorney in New York County and later became partner in Pavia and Hartcourt. She served as judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1992 to 1998; and on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals from 1998 to her nomination to the Supreme Court in 2009.

She matches up fairly well on paper with both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But pundits and the legal community responded to her nomination very differently. Not only was she not “brilliant” in the traditional sense, she was “not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.” Her qualifications for the seat were questioned openly. Critics accused President Obama of sacrificing “biography over brain.”

Unsurprisingly, the claims do not stand up to empirical analysis. Justice Sotomayor’s stint as appellate judge matched up with her peers as well as judges widely considered “brilliant.” More importantly, can any of those critics look at her body of work on the Supreme Court and consider her an exemplary justice, or at the very least, on par with all the others? And yet, “brilliance” was not a word used during her nomination, but the opposite was true. Something is amiss.

Here’s what I think is going on. Yes, merit is socially constructed. No question. This means, more crucially, that merit is not an intrinsic individual quality, akin to the way we think of IQs or personality traits, but a mark of status within a community. We cannot begin to think about “brilliance” outside of the communities within which the moniker is used. This is why Judge Sotomayor was never accorded the honor that the label bestows. She was an outsider, even as she achieved honors at Princeton University, honors that, incidentally, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh achieved. But they didn’t need fancy labels for those in the community to know how brilliant they were. Who needs summa cum laude or Phi Beta Kappa to see those things “we” already “know”?

And yes, this also means that people of color, as outsiders, are swimming against the tide.  As Justice Sotomayor herself once put it, “I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of the worlds I inhabit. I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up.”  Or President Obama, who once told us of his “constant, crippling fear that I didn’t belong somehow, that unless I dodged and hid and pretended to be something I wasn’t I would forever remain an outsider, with the rest of the world, black and white, always standing in judgment,”

An applicant of color is seldom if ever “brilliant,” and becoming so is never easy. Some never do. This is true even for those people of color who dare become Supreme Court justices, or president of the United States.

[cross posted in Race and Democracy]

Three Lessons of "Hidden Figures"

I just saw a film that sent electric shocks through my body from beginning to end.  The film was "Hidden Figures."  The film tells the story of three remarkable African American women who worked for NASA in the post-war South and in so doing helped the United States reach space.  The film made me laugh, but also cry.  The film inspired me, but also enraged me.  Watching the film, I turned to my 12-year-old boy too often to try to explain the unexplainable.  How do you explain "Freedom Summer" and the "Freedom Rides"?  How do you explain and try to make sense of segregation and the need to walk to a bathroom half a mile away because the bathroom next to your working space is "for whites only," only to return to your desk and find your supervisor in your face because you disappeared for too long?  What do you say when your child asks you, "when did the Klan stop killing people"?

What do you say?

As I watched the film, three over-arching lessons kept racing through my mind.  The first was about the film itself and the history it depicts.  Where did these moments in history go?  Where have they been?  And how do these movies help us recover them?  The film reminds me of the early history of Reconstruction, and particularly the writings of the Dunning School.  This early history understood the freedmen as lazy, unenlightened, and undeserving of the rights that Reconstruction had granted them.  This is no longer the way we remember this period .  How do we explain this change in the historiography of Reconstruction?  This question forces us to ask more general questions: What is history? Who owns it? How do we change it?  How do we make sense of the past?

In thinking about these questions, it is important to remember Eric Foner's warning about revisionist history:

It’s hard for people not versed in history to get the point on why historical interpretation changes. In the general culture “revisionist historian” is a term of abuse. But that is what we do. Revising history is our job. So every historian is a revisionist historian in some sense.

This is what "Hidden Figures" means to me.  History is full of hidden figures.  It is important to reflect on who they are, why they are hidden, and who is hiding them.

The second lesson is about the Constitution.  Our Constitution.  The film offers a subtle lesson about the Constitution and its meaning as lived experience.  One of the three central characters in the film, Mary Jackson, wants to be an engineer yet needs to fulfill some graduate-level courses, which are offered by the University of Virginia through the local high school. The local white high school.  The year was 1961.  Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.  The question whether Ms. Jackson could have taken courses at the local high school should have been settled by Brown, but it was not.  The courtroom scene is important for what it teaches us about our Constitution and the scope of our rights.  Ms. Jackson goes to court to enforce Brown, yet the judge reminds her that this is Virginia.  He ultimately allows her to go to school, but only night school.

The lesson is clear.  The Constitution is nothing but words on paper.  By itself, the Constitution means nothing, but it can mean everything.  The Constitution, those words on paper, are whatever we want them to be.  If you need an explicit example, look no further than the history of the Fifteenth Amendment.  The freedmen came to the polls in large part through the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which forced the former confederate states to allow Blacks to vote and take office as a pre-condition of rejoining the Union.  The Fifteenth Amendment nationalized what the Reconstruction Act had imposed on the South three years earlier.  This is the climax of Black political participation in the 19th Century.  Then, like a slow burn, Black voter turnout began to dwindle.  By the turn of the century, the Fifteenth Amendment had come to mean nothing.  It was a dead letter.  In some parts of the country, Black political participation had decreased by large percentages, in some places by 100%.

This is a remarkable development.  How does it make sense for Dr. King to ask for the ballot in 1957 in a world where the 15th Amendment is the law of the land?  This takes us back to the earlier question: what is the Constitution?  The Constitution is whatever we decide that it is, understood through the sweat and tears of political struggle.  Put a different way: constitutional rights are not given to us.  They never have been and never will be.  In the brave new post-2016 election world, this is a crucial lesson.  The upcoming women's march on Washington is a fitting start.  But it is only a start.

The third lesson is about talent.  And merit.  And the promise of equality.  The women in the film were clearly talented and met whatever definition of merit one wishes to adopt.  And yet, as we raced the Soviets to the moon, we cast them aside.  Racism is really that powerful.  How do we overcome it?  How do we overcome and move past years of oppression and discrimination? That is the question of our time.  But this is not a new question.  One popular conservative answer is that only our stubborn refusal to see and use racial categories will help us to overcome race and racism.  I wish I could believe that.  This is not to say that we will not get there.  It is to say, however, that we have been trying to overcome racism for generations.

Katherine Johnson, the woman at the center of the movie, did get the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015.

By our first Black president.  

What makes a great coach, or a great applicant, or a great anything? And what does race have to do with it?

A few days ago, Terry Bradshaw, hall of fame quarterback, offered his thoughts on Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin.  They were not kind:

“I don’t think he’s a great coach at all. . . . He’s a nice coach. To me, I’ve said this, he’s really a great cheerleader guy. I don’t know what he does. I don’t think he is a great coach at all. His name never even pops in my mind when we think about great coaches in the NFL.”

The quote raises obvious questions.  What makes a great coach?  What does a great coach do?  What is a "great cheerleader guy," as opposed to a great coach?  Who is a great coach in the NFL today, or ever? And most importantly, what does Mike Tomlin's race have to do with any of this?

A great coach

Is Mike Tomlin a great coach?  His numbers at least put him in the conversation.  In his ten years as head coach of the Steelers, he has compiled a 159-102 win-loss record.  That means that he has won 64% of his games.  In those ten years, he has led his team to the playoffs 7 times, has won the AFC twice, and won one Super Bowl.  On its face, this is an impressive record.  By way of a comparison, look at everybody's hall of fame coach Bill Belichick.  In  22 years, Belichick has a 67% winning percentage, 6 AFC championships and 4 Super Bowl wins.  

How do we measure these numbers?  How do we compare Tomlin's numbers to all great coaches in the league, past, present and future?  I cannot pretend to know.  But the beauty of this particular debate is that a lot of people have lots of answers, and they do not always agree with each other. Here's an answer, from Paul Zeise of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Tomlin is a good coach, not a great one, "but numbers without context are meaningless."  And the only context that matters, according to Zeise, is that Tomlin "has never had to coach even one season without an elite/Hall of Fame-level quarterback."  This means that "Tomlin has to be judged on a different scale and with a different curve than most coaches of the past, say, 35 years."  Tomlin also inherited a great team.  And his drafts have been mediocre.  He could be a great coach, Zeise concludes, "but he needs to win at least another Super Bowl, and it wouldn’t hurt if he had a run of successful seasons after [his hall of fame quarterback] is gone."

This is the line that sticks with me: "Tomlin has to be judged on a different scale and with a different curve than most coaches of the past, say, 35 years."  I am not about to fact check whether most hall of fame coaches of the last 35 years have had a hall of fame quarterback or not.  But we know this: Belichick has won four Super Bowls with the best quarterback of his generation, maybe of all time. Does that take away from his accomplishments?  We also know that John Gruden won a Super Bowl in Tampa Bay with what may be, at best a pedestrian quarterback.  Does that make him a great coach?  And we also know that Don Shula never won a Super Bowl with hall of famer Dan Marino as quarterback.

Is the point, then, that Mike Tomlin's record is as-of-yet incomplete?  Is the point that we ought not anoint Tomlin as a great coach until he coaches for longer than ten years?  Maybe so.  But that's not the point that Bradshaw was making.  He was not making an epistemic claim but an ontological one.  The point was not whether Tomlin's record was the record of a great coach, but whether Tomlin is a great coach irrespective of his record.  He is not, according to Bradshaw.  Rather, he is "a great cheerleader guy."  That's who he is, and this is something that a better record will not change.

Think about that for a second.  What makes a great coach and how do we know?  These are old questions.  What is merit and how do we determine it?  I don't pretend to know.  And anyone who pretends otherwise is probably lying, or hasn't given these questions the thoughtfulness they deserve.

A cheerleader guy

Bradshaw did give Tomlin credit for being "a great cheerleader guy."  I think I know what that means. Tomlin is not a strategy guy, and Xs and Os guy, a coach who will out-scheme and out-smart the opposition.  What he will do, according to Bradshaw, is rally the troops and cheer them on.

This quote reminds me of something I read years ago about Sir Alex Ferguson, one of the greatest managers in English soccer history.  Ferguson's greatest strength as a manager, or so I read, were his leadership qualities, the way he could rally a team to fight for a common goal.  One could even think of it as "cheerleading."  I never thought of it as a negative thing.  To be sure, "cheerleading" may be a negative as applied to Tomlin. But without question, the term, standing alone, is loaded.  Think of how many Super Bowl winning coaches you know who are considered "cheerleader guys" and nothing more.  I can't think of many.

The look of a coach...and race

And this brings me to the elephant in the room.  Mike Tomlin is Black.  He was hired only after the NFL instituted the Rooney rule, which required teams to interview an applicant of color before moving forward with a coaching hire.  Tomlin was not in the team's radar, and the interview was extended only as a courtesy.  But Tomlin blew away the interview and got the job.  The hire turned a lot of heads around the league.  It was unexpected, to say the least.  Ten years and a Super Bowl win later, we are still debating whether Tomlin is a good coach, or a great one.  

This debate also reminds me of hall of fame quarterback Warren Moon.  Or Doug Williams.  Or Randall Cunningham.  They were all very good quarterbacks, even great, but the football world had a hard time seeing their greatness.  They did not look the part of "great quarterback."  They were Black quarterbacks before they were great quarterbacks.  And yes, race had everything to do with it.  

I would love to believe that we don't see race, that we only see merit, and that the world is ready to move past race conscious policy making.  But I know better.  And if you don't believe me, do a simple thought experiment.  Imagine a white coach who has won a Super Bowl and been to the playoffs in 7 of his first 10 years in the league, and whether we would be debating if he was a great coach or merely a cheerleading guy. Or think about how many mediocre coaches get second chances, and how many coaches of color get only one chance.  

Just imagine.

What do Affirmative Action and the Recent College Football Playoff Selection Have in Common?

Three days ago, the college football selection committee finalized its final four choices to take part in the first annual playoff to determine the sports national champion.  The University of Oregon and and the University of Alabama were certain to make it, but the other two choices were a bit more controversial.  Critics of Florida State University argued that, though undefeated, FSU played a soft schedule and escaped from defeat myriad times this season.  The fourth choice, Ohio State University, was even more surprising.  Never in the time I have watched college football do I remember a time when a team jumps those above it in any type of ranking, whether traditional polls or BCS rankings, after all the relevant teams win their final games.  Ohio State destroyed Wisconsin, to be sure, but Baylor and TCU similarly won their games.  And yet Ohio State made it into the playoffs.  And the debates began.

I watched these developments with great amusement.  I wondered whether anybody else could see the connection between this so very public debate and the use of race in employment, college admissions, and elsewhere.

The similarities are astounding. And it makes clear that the affirmative action debate should be more like the college football selection process.  But there is no chance of that.  When it comes to race, reason and judgment leave us, and stupid sets in.

Race and Merit Return to the Firehouse

The question of hiring practices in fire departments is not new.  But it sure seems troubling.  This is the context that gave rise to the Ricci case and the decision by the city of New Haven to throw away an employment test that would have had a racially disparate impact.  The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, strongly disapproved of this action.

The city of New York is no stranger to this debate.  Currently, the city's fire department is in the middle of an effort to diversify that is unprecedented in the history of the department.  According to a recent report by the New York Times, "[i]n 18 months, officials say, recruiters have sought black candidates at more than 6,100 events at high schools, colleges, shopping malls, boxing gyms, softball games and military picnics, all but begging them to apply for the next entrance test, in January, by the Sept. 15 deadline."

This is remarkable in many ways. Commendable, to be sure, and also necessary; but this is not what caught my attention.

After one of his many recruiting speeches across the city, the fire commissioner explained his stance on the issue. 

After his speech, he sat near the church’s basketball court, where he avowed, remarkably, that while he had obviously always known the department was predominantly white, he never understood, until the suit was filed, that others viewed this whiteness through a lens of racial bias." 

“It never dawned on anyone,” he said. “We never looked at white or black. We looked at good firefighter or not so good. Me? I made it in this department by what I did, not who I was. But then you suddenly realize: people may actually think we’re discriminatory.” 

Looking almost hurt, he paused and said, “That’s why I’m here today.”

This is a remarkable passage.  Hurt?  Dumbfounded, as in, how could anyone think we discriminate? This is an old refrain: I made it far in _________ (fill in the blank with your profession of choice), and surely, if I made it, anybody can.

I suspect the fire commissioner is not alone. But such is the beauty of white privilege. Imagine the amount of guilt and unnecessary angst if he were to give any thought to why he rose through the ranks as he did.  It is much easier to think of his achievements as stemming from individual hard work and determination than as a measure of one's racial standing in the world.  

If only life were so simple.

The same day I read this account of the diversity struggle in NYC, I also read Nate Silver's insightful account of the difficulty inherent to differentiating, from the many available teams, which two teams deserve to play for the BCS national championship in football.  This piece is a remarkable read. Silver asks the following question: are the people who participate in the polls used to determine who deserves to play in the championship game "judging teams based solely on their performance? Or do biases and preordained notions about the teams’ quality enter into the equation?"  Unsurprisingly, Silver concludes that "[t]he evidence points toward the latter. A team’s preseason ranking has a modest but statistically significant effect on its B.C.S. ranking at the end of the season, even after controlling for its quality of play as determined by computer systems."

It gets better.  According to Silver, "[t]here is also evidence that teams with wider fan bases are more likely to be treated favorably by B.C.S. voters — meaning that the surveys are a popularity contest, at least in part. A marquee name like Notre Dame is likely to finish a couple of ranks higher than, for instance, Mississippi State or Northwestern given equivalent performance on the field."  This is another way of saying that teams are not treated equally, and that "merit" is more of an aspiration than a political reality.

So much for the objectivity of computers and fancy formulas.

Next time your boss brings out fancy tests or formulas to prove to you why you are not getting a raise or a promotion, think twice about he's telling you.  (It is particularly amusing when a dean pulls out a sheet of paper where he ranks the faculty according to a formula that is only understood by whomever designed it, as if to prove objectively why you are not getting what other people are).  These are probably the same fancy tests and formulas that determined that he should have a raise or a promotion.  It is likely that he became your boss thanks in great part to these same metrics.  That fact alone makes them true.

Maybe this is not so remarkable after all.

Fuentes-Rohwer in the NY Times

Luis has an essay in the Times that you can find here.  The essay is about race and merit in college admissions.  Well done Luis.

Why is it that we get stupid when we talk about race?

I was in O’Brien County earlier week, a piece of the heartland tucked away in the northwest corner of Iowa.  This county is in the fifth congressional district, home to none other than congressman Steve King.   While there, I read with great interest Ross Douthat’s comments on “the root of white anxiety.”   I also had a great conversation with an old farmer, now retired, about economics, politics, and even a little political theory.  Whatever is the matter with Kansas, if my conversation with this one farmer is a true reflection of the fifth congressional, is also the matter with Iowa.

I’ll set aside the latter conversation for a future post.  For now, I am far more interested in what Douthat is trying to tell us, and why I think he’s not even close to the mark.