I’ve sat on many boards over the years. Business  boards. Charitable foundations. Religious institutions.  Some boards only had five or six members. Others had two dozen.  Most had men and women sitting on these boards together. Young and old. Rich and poor. I’m happy to say that most of my board room experiences have been good ones. I’ve learned a lot – mostly from those whose frames of reference are far different than my own.

 On more than one occasion I’ve sat down to begin a meeting predisposed to vote a certain way on an agenda item, only to be persuaded to another point of view during board discussion. That’s usually the result of another board member expressing an opinion or a thought that, by myself, I would not have come up with.

 And it’s not surprising is it? Each of us approaches life from our own unique set of life experiences, intelligence, religious and ethical background, educational training and family dynamics. No two individuals share the exact same set of variables, so it goes that two individuals looking at the same set of facts may arrive at totally different conclusions.

 That’s why I view the Supreme Court Justice nomination process to be so intriguing. President Obama nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman. She’s heard on videotape proclaiming that her unique background enabled her to arrive at a conclusion that a white male justice wouldn’t come to. Being proud of her heritage she suggests that her point of view might be superior in some way to the white male.

 Newt Gingrich huffs that if a white male said this statement about a Hispanic woman, he’d be run out of town. While Newt probably has a point on the political correctness front, I believe that his argument misses the point.

 David Brooks, a conservative New York Times columnist (you judge for yourself if that is an oxymoron) recently wrote that the American legal system is based on a useful falsehood. It’s based on the falsehood that this is a nation of laws, not men; that in rendering decisions, disembodied, objective judges are able to put aside emotion and unruly passion and issue opinions on the basis of pure reason.

 He went on to say that most people understand this is untrue. In reality, decisions are made by imperfect minds in ambiguous circumstances. It is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason and not emotion because emotions are an inherent part of decision-making.

He concludes it’s not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it’s how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.

Take the case of the thirteen year old girl who sued her school district over a strip search she endured after a classmate accused her of having drugs in her possession. One justice may look at the most important aspect of the case as the protection of all of the schoolchildren from a potentially bad influence, therefore justifying the embarrassment of one student for a few minutes. Another justice may view the most important part of the case to be the wrongful humiliation of a young, developing child/adolescent at the hands of school (government) officials.

Which justice would have it wrong? I think you can make a case for both sides. But if you don’ t have justices with differing life experiences, differing genders and of course different points of view, one of these views may never make it into the discussion inside of the judge’s chambers.

Our nation was founded on its diversity and thrives on its diversity. There is no other nation quite like it on earth. Our melting pot of life experiences has produced a culture that continues to influence the world.

So why get so bent out of shape over a nominee who doesn’t look like the other justices, and will be likely to approach cases from a different point of view? Isn’t that level of diversity exactly what we want sitting on the bench of the most important court in our nation?

©2009 Craig R. Hersch