PHOTOS, PAGE 1

       Editor and prime reporter is Doug Terry, a veteran television and radio reporter in   Washington, DC, (details below)

The New York Times conducted a provocative debate about nominees to the US Supreme Court being drawn mainly from Harvard and Yale and the Ivy League. Below is Doug Terry’s posting on the matter. There is also a link to the Times pages online.

Only in the field of law do the Ivy League schools have a virtual lock on what is considered \"excellence\". In other fields, one may graduate from an unknown college or university and prove oneself by merit. In law, the stamp of approval HARVARD follows one every step of the way.

Why is this so? For one thing, the American Bar Association and other legal fulcrums have been expertly used to exclude anyone from outside the club. It is the bar associations which make recommendations and raise objections when someone not to their liking begins an assent into the court system.

We should consider this: is there one set of superior knowledge in the field of law or, more importantly, in life? If there is, why have we not managed to create a system which shares that system with a wider population? Why should superiority be limited to a few thousand graduates a year?

The answer is there is no such system of superior knowledge, but there is such a system of sustained privilege and thy name is Ivy. The system is perpetuated by prep schools, legacy admissions, massive donations by wealthy parents and the simple reality that when someone else in one's social or family circles has managed admission, the path is easier by shared knowledge of the process.

We have had recent presidential elections in which all of the major candidates had been anointed in their youthful years by contact with Harvard or Yale. Gore v. Bush in 2000 was, what's more, an all preppy boy contest. Is this where true freedom and true accomplishment have taken us?

Merit, you say? It is true that all of the so called \"elite\" schools have adjusted their policies toward admitting a wide range of students, but it is also true that the old ways are deeply embedded in their practices. One aspect of the changes that have taken place is that the son or daughter of a governor of an American state is now considered less desirable as a student than the son of a prime minister of any distant land.

I write as one who currently has a nephew at Harvard Law and who sits down for major family holiday dinners with young lawyers from Duke and, yes, Harvard. They are fine and worthy people, each one. But it is fair to ask just how much anyone who submits him or herself to the seven years of rigorous academic pounding knows about the real world in which most Americans live and from which many of our most tangled problems arise.

Go to school where you may, but let people prove themselves through action and thought. There is no inherent lock between intellect and wisdom. Indeed, being fawned over for years because of one's quick mind and lucky birth could create an impediment to mental growth. Not knowing anything about the common life of citizens, or the sometimes down trodden places where they live, would certainly create a block to understanding the human dimensions of our national life. One's own personal experiences growing up, what one sees, hears and has imposed, create the most important frame work for understanding the world. Harvard cannot teach these lessons.

In recent decades, we have seen a Supreme Court increasingly dedicated to rigidity, toward reinforcing the established order of wealth and status. Wonder why that is? Scalia has told us, on television, to \"get over\" having our electoral franchise mangled in 2000, the sacred right of citizens to participate in the selection of leadership that, at base, represents the ONLY right we have to influence government and the future of our country. We don't need that kind of arrogance on the Court. Let's try something different. Let's try broadening our horizons to consider all Americans of intelligence and accomplishment.

On this score, President Obama could do the nation a great favor by appointing someone under 40 years of age, maybe even under 35 to the court. Preferably a non-jurist.

Doug Terry

THE LINK TO THE TIMES DISCUSSION ONLINE

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/supreme-club/

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end