|
Let's try this:
A. Women of color have markedly different life experiences than white males.
B. These experiences are thus unique.
C. In some instances, having a certain unique experience is a boon to an individual (in terms of decision making).
D. In few instances is a lack of a certain experience a 'boon' to an individual (it may be 'better' than not having it in the way that 0 is better than -5, but almost never is it a net benefit; limited to decision making).
E. Tying these together, all things being otherwise equal, having an experience is generally better than not having that experience.
F. Taking this to her logical conclusion, having an experience would hopefully lead to better judicial decisions than not having that experience.
What part of this do we disagree with? It seems very straightforward, almost to the point of being lame or tautological, mostly because it is pie-in-the-sky to the point of worthlessness (but certainly not because it is "racist", race-baiting, or even unnecessarily makes assumptions about race or gender).
|