The Strange yet Unremarkable Case of Jeremy Lin

Stop me if you've heard this story before: A terrific high-school athlete is overlooked during the recruiting process because he does not fit the stereotype of what college athletes are supposed to look like.  He ends up at a terrific college, yet not an athletic powerhouse.  He has a terrific college career, but pro scouts ignore him the same way college coaches ignored him before. He catches on with a pro team, and then another, and then another.  He is not sticking with any one team for long.  And then, almost out of necessity, he gets a chance.  One chance.  One time.  One game.  And he blows it out of the water.  

The story is almost out of central casting, tailor-made for Angelo Pizzo.  For those not paying attention to the world of sports in the last week or so, this also happens to be the story, in a nutshell, of Jeremy Lin, Taiwanese American point guard for the New York Knicks.  How in the world do we explain the fact that a multi-million dollar system designed to scout talent missed as badly as it missed with Jeremy Lin? Here's the cold reality:

"It's the Asian thing," says former NBA player Rex Walters, who's Japanese-American and wound up with [Jesse] Evans' job at [the University of San Francisco]. "People who don't think stereotypes exist are crazy. If he's white, he's either a good shooter or heady. If he's Asian, he's good at math. We're not taking him."

Lin looks like a math major, not a basketball player.  Simple as that.

But make no mistake, this is not a new story. We have seen it a million times.

This is the story of Toby Gerhardt or Brock Forsey, white running backs in a world where running backs happen to be black; or the story of many black quarterbacks in a world where quarterbacks happen to be white.  The argument applies to basketball players and concert pianists, to college professors and football coaches, to welfare recipients and college students.  Stereotypes abound, and they affect our decision-making in ways that we often fail -- or refuse -- to recognize.

Think about what this means for debates over hiring and college admissions.  Close your eyes a moment and think about what a college student is supposed to look like, or better yet, a college professor.   As you do that, try to imagine what happens when a faculty gets together to choose a new colleague, or worse yet, when a faculty gets together to vote on a tenure case.  Even those who have never been privy to one of those meetings have a pretty good idea of what goes on. 

Ask Rex Walters.

Hello I am Spongebob...

...and this is opposite day. When I woke up this morning, I did not expect to see that Rick Santorum had won the caucuses/primaries in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado yesterday. Even more amazing (at least to me) is that Mitt Romney came in third in Minnesota, a state that he won in 2008 and competed for this year. For Santorum, yesterday’s wins mean that he has changed the narrative about Romney’s frontrunner status, but the Republican primaries also raise interesting questions about the underlying legal regime that serve as a backdrop to these contests.

For example, Romney is extremely well-funded, both as a candidate and through a pro-Romney SuperPAC. He outspent Gingrich 5-1 in Florida, and won the state by 14 percentage points. Many blame this huge influx of money into the Republican primary and the rise of SuperPACs on Citizens United, and there is some truth to that. As we all know, money matters and the more money one can raise, even from corporate donors through unaffiliated, pro-you SuperPACs, the better your chances of winning the election. But Romney lost all three contests yesterday, despite his resources and despite the fact that he had hoped to win Minnesota and had spent money there. He lost to a candidate who is a pauper by comparison. Santorum had limited resources, but he spent time in each state, shaking hands and talking to voters.

So yes, it is certainly true that money in elections matters; that having organization and boots on the ground matter….but I still like to think that yesterday’s contests show that if the voters don’t like you, you won’t win. Although I feel for Romney given that this is his second bite at the apple, I do find it somewhat reassuring that the voters still have some say in this process.

Or it could just be that voter turnout was down yesterday and that increased Santorum’s chances of winning. Either way, I would rather believe in the system. Yay democracy!

A Word on the Supreme Court and the Old "Strict Constructionism" Canard

As the U.S. Supreme Court readies itself to decide major cases about Obama's health care law, Arizona's notorious immigration law, and the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, a recent editorial in the New York Times focuses needed attention on the connection between the Supreme Court and mainstream politics.  According to the Times:

Each case grows out of a struggle between left and right where politics have pushed the law: between a quest for universal coverage and the defense of big health care providers; between an emphasis on openness and hostility toward immigrants; and between a promise of access to the voting booth made nearly 50 years ago and the unyielding opposition to keeping that promise.

This is not a new story, not by any means, but its lessons are worth remembering: just as the law thrusts itself into politics, it is also true that "politics shape the court." 

This is an important reminder, especially in an election year, when conservative candidates will undoubtedly intensify their promises to nominate "strict constructionists."  The hypocrisy is palpable; judicial activism knows no one party or ideology.  But one thing is true: conservatives have skillfully managed to set the terms of the debate.  This means that a decision striking down the VRA, for example, would be seen in conservative quarters as a triumph of our new federalism, not as an activist response to the work of Congress; yet a decision upholding the health care law would similarly be seen as a constitutional failure to uphold federalist principles.  This is clearly nonsense.  

I am not sure what it will take to alter the terms of the debate.  But we should not stop trying. 

Ward Connerly Deserves to be Paid More Because he's Black

According to this New York Times article, Ward Connerly is in financing trouble and is being accused of financial mismanagement.  His chief accuser is Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the University of Michigan anti-affirmative action case.  One of the alleged financial irregularities is Mr. Connerly's pay, which by one calculation is about six times more than some others in similar positions.   Roger Clegg appears to justify the discrepancy in pay on the grounds that Mr. Connerly, as the black face and leader of an anti-affirmative action movement is singularly invaluable.  This is the key excerpt from the piece on this score:

One reason Mr. Connerly has been a particularly effective advocate is that he is black. Mr. Clegg said there were “few people who can do or would do what he does,” adding that it is hard to set a salary on a job that requires enduring racially charged name-calling from fellow blacks.

I'm confused.  I thought these folks were supposed to be colorblind? 

Mitt Romney and Path Dependent Processes

Mitt Romney often justifies his moderate record as governor of Massachusetts (and subsequent leap to the right) as a deviation since he was the governor of a democratic state with a legislature that was, at the time, 85% democratic.  In the primaries, he has been criticized extensively for “flipflopping, or changing positions on issues such as abortion and health care and not being “a true conservative.”  But I wonder the extent to which the other candidates for the Republican nomination and the press are discounting the effect of path dependence on Romney’s alleged “shift” to the right in reviewing his record as governor. 

The fact that Romney became governor of a state that is historically democratic in almost every respect except the governorship limits his ability to govern to the right.  This is reflective of a state that has been a Democratic stronghold for years, but has voters who are willing to vote for moderate Republicans for at least some state offices.  Path dependence is relevant here because the investment in the rules, process and norms by Romney’s predecessors and prior legislatures into Massachusetts government over the past 250+ years make deviations by modern day officials very costly.  Even if we just consider the past century, Democrats have invested more into this governing framework than Republicans just by virtue of the fact that Democrats have won more elections.  While the governorship oscillates between Democrats and Republicans, the Democrats have (and have had) a supermajority in both Houses, meaning that legislation can be passed over the governor’s veto if the governor is a Republican.  Because of path dependent effects (and an overwhelmingly Democratic culture), there is a strong status quo bias that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans like Romney to shift the Massachusetts government to the right.  At best, all Romney could have done (if he wanted to get anything done) is govern in the middle.

Now you may argue that this has little to do with Romney being for abortion, on one hand, and then against it, on another.  Or passing universal health care in Massachusetts and then threatening to defund a similar program on the federal level.  Maybe it does not, but I think that it is worth recognizing that, in assessing Mitt’s policy positions, he was a red governor in a blue state and this fact did affect his ability to govern to the right.  At the end of the day, you may still conclude that he is a "flipflopper," but standing up for “core conservative principles” does not mean much if nothing gets done.  Governance requires compromise.

What’s so hard about televising oral arguments?

The question whether the cameras should be allowed in the Supreme Court is heating up. Most recently, CSPAN asked the justices to allow it to televise the oral argument over the health care law. It is unlikely that the justices will grant the request. In a recent sidebar, Adam Liptak argues that these refusals are based on “paternalism and self-interest.” Tony Mauro similarly argues that the Court's refusal to allow cameras in its courtroom "is born of fear of change, nostalgia, a self-interested desire for anonymity, but most of all exceptionalism: the Court's view of itself as a unique institution that can and should resist the demands of the information age."

Nancy Marder disagrees and argues instead that the justices have struck the right balance between the openness that the justices have chosen for themselves and their work and the obscurity in which their work must take place.

Liptak and Mauro take this one, and it’s not even close.

The Republicans turn to their favorite punching bag once again: the courts

It appears, if the editorial page of the New York Times is to be believed, that Newt Gingrich is at it again. I figured as much. His apparent conversion to moderate politics – I have in mind here his recent position on illegal immigration – was too good to be true. In his defense, running for the Republican nomination is not easy. Lots of crazies out there. Ask Romney. 

Here is the latest. According to Gingrich, Congress and the President must begin to push back on the Court, Cooper v. Aaron and judicial supremacy be damned. Among the tools at the politico’s disposal are the power to strip jurisdiction; impeachment; and the right to abolish specific judicial seats. The affected institutions could also ignore rulings they don’t like. 

The Times’ editors find this approach distasteful. As a general matter, they argue that Gingrich’s attack on the courts takes “the normal attack on the justice system to a new low.” They equate his criticism to “McCarthyist tactics” designed to “smear judges.” Gingrich’s view that the political branches must stand up to the court is described as “twisted.” They close with the following: “His ideas would replace the rule of law with a reign of ideology. If he had his way, a Supreme Court that ordered an end to racist segregation policies would become a puppet of the political branches.” 

I have three reactions, and a better response to Mr. Gingrich.