Assume that two people, A and B, are both qualified for a job. Person A is a white male. Let us further assume that Person B is an African-American. Person A is hired because B is black. That, by definition, is discrimination.

The same can be said if Person B was female, handicapped in some way unrelated to job qualifications and/or a member of several other recognized categories.

Soon a new Supreme Court judge will be selected. There is talk that the new justice must be black, Hispanic, a woman or maybe even an exotic, like a black woman with a Navajo grandmother.

It all sounds wonderful, but let's go back to our original premise. Person A is a white male. Person B is black, Hispanic, a woman, or a black woman with a Navajo grandmother. All, on average, are equally qualified.

If Person A is not selected only because he is a white male, why is that not racial and sexual discrimination?

It could be argued that discrimination is necessary because groups need representation. This should not apply to the job qualifications of the Supreme Court. The Court's duty is to enforce the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution applies equally to all people. To say otherwise justifies the Constitution to be used as an instrument of discrimination.

During the heady days of the civil rights movement, a political cartoon showed the statue of Justice with her blindfold across her eyes and the scales in her hand, but in this case, she was peeking out from under the blindfold to see what the race was of the person standing before her.

As the cartoon implied, this is a very bad idea.

It might be argued that discrimination is necessary because white males will not give other groups equal opportunity, but that would be a racist and sexist opinion.

You could argue that a life perspective is necessary to justly deal with important and subtle matters in a complex society. This is a good point, but I'll use a personal experience to illustrate the problem.

Before coming to UNI, I once applied for an opening at Vassar. I met all the qualifications for the position as listed. I told the committee at Vassar that since other candidates would also be qualified, they should look beyond mere qualifications and consider the tenets of diversity. I could guarantee that they had few professors, actually not one, who was a Neanderthal conservative whose father was a Nevada rancher, and who belonged to several other marginalized groups.

The people at Vassar were not amused. They didn't even acknowledge receipt of the application materials, which I assume, was a violation of protocol.

You see, the argument for discrimination based on diversity and for a unique perspective is hollow; everyone knows it, and everyone pretends not to notice.

Perhaps the need for discrimination in finding a new justice is simply self-serving. It is good hard-nosed politics. To win an election, voting blocks are necessary. Selecting a justice from one of these blocks will win a lot of votes, and all proper thinking Americans will either applaud or keep their mouths shut.

Then there is another thing. Discrimination, like abortion, has become a litmus test of the left; ironically, not in its absence, but in its insistence. Selecting a justice BECAUSE she is a black woman with a Navajo grandmother is reason enough. No other candidate could be equally qualified by definition.

This justice also will offer no surprises. She will fall to the left on every issue. Do you want a fascist economic system and Swedish socialism everywhere else? It is all constitutional. Why? Because this justice may have a "unique" perspective on life, but that is not really why she will be selected. She will, like a puppet, join that long line of liberal conformists championing every "correct" idea coming down the pike.