In last week's issue of “Political Vine” there appeared two excellent columns by J. Randy Evans and Sean Turner addressing the Supreme Court's latest ruling on race-based admissions for colleges and universities.

The essence of the Court ruling was based on the concept of "Diversity" as a compelling reason when considering admissions. This particular application and ruling on diversity is focused on race. However, it is important that we fully understand the concept of diversity now that the Supreme Court has ruled that diversity is a national interest and is based on the U.S. Constitution. A point can be argued that the Supreme Court has over stepped its constitutional authority and is legislating from the bench. That may be true; therefore, these types of rulings will continue until the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch rein in the Supreme Court and limit its rulings or impeach individual justices for either dereliction of duty or lack of proper judicial restraint.

The beauty and safeguard that our Founding Fathers structured into the U.S. Constitution is the system of checks and balances. Congress and the Executive Branch are engaged in a continuous struggle of power with each other while the Supreme Court goes unchecked in its acquisition of power. The Supreme Court must be included in the arena of checks and balances. Congress and the President must act on their constitutional authority to bring the Supreme Court into the three pillars of constitutional government. It now seems that we have two governmental entities and the third is the watchdog over the other two and all the 50 states. That is not the way our founders structured our governmental foundation. If the power of the Supreme Court is not limited, then we will cease to exist as a Constitutional Republic, and the United States will also cease to exist. Nine lawyers with lifetime tenure cannot be allowed to independently rule the United States with impunity.

My purpose here is to discuss "Diversity" and its various facets and reserve the independence of the Supreme Court for another treatise at a later date.

During my career in management at Lucent Technologies, I attended several mandatory diversity classes/seminars. Before attending my first diversity class, I had incorrectly anticipated that the subject was limited to race and gender. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the definition diversity included age, socio-economic background, religion, and people having different perspectives on issues.

I was intrigued with the opening class/seminar statement defining diversity. The instructor went on to relate diversity to business by explaining that it was illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of age, gender, or national origin. (Please note that there are written Constitutional protections against discrimination in areas of age, gender, and national origin, except for the Presidency; the Constitution does not prohibit hiring discrimination against non-citizens.)

Diversity, we were told, provided the most effective problem solving. Because of diversity there would be a wider range of perspectives and opinions, which in turn would provide a wider range of possible solutions, ultimately resulting in the most effective solution. We were told that diversity was not about meeting quotas, but it was about hiring the best people we could find and not always hiring people who looked like us with similar education and background. This definition, also, included people with conservative or liberal positions. In other words, we were told to judge the potential contribution of a person to the specific job or task and not to look for reasons to exclude someone.

I liked that concept, because it represented my idea of America. It also represented my political philosophy as well. There were some in the class who did not change their perspectives, but I took this position to heart. I was growing a new engineering department from five engineers to over 40 people in less than 18 months. Because my department was a new endeavor for Lucent, I had to develop new data systems and organizational processes.

This new department was so critical to Lucent that I was given total responsibility for hiring and staffing. I began hiring the best and the brightest graduates from Georgia Tech, some of whom, had their degrees in computer science instead of engineering. I quickly realized that there was a herd mentality from new graduates, and I could not put any of them on a conference call without support. I needed to hire older people to provide a mature insightful balance. I then found that I needed to hire others who may not have had engineering experience. I hired the best I could find.

I hired one very experience employee, a woman in her late 50s who had no engineering experience, but she had a talent of bringing order from chaos and documenting that order. However, when I hired this woman, I was given raised eyebrows. Within six months, she was recognized as an exceptional employee and accepted by senior managers who had previously questioned my concept of diversity. There are many other examples that I could use, but within a year my Director commented that I had the most diverse engineering department he had ever seem. Another senior manager told me that he thought he had an excellent ability to make good hires, but I carried that ability to another level. It was through the results of diversity that I gained the reputation of having created "high performance" engineering teams.

I had a vision of the role and function of my department, but the strategies, tactics and implementation took a team involvement. I needed effective creative solutions created from different perspectives. Had I hired people from a single background, age range, race, or gender, I could not have been successful. My department could not have achieved and exceeded the corporate goals. But we did, and I am proud to have been a part of it. This concept of diversity - worked for everyone who had a solid contribution.

So that brings me back to the Supreme Court's ruling on "Diversity." We must insist that diversity is comprehensive in all areas of our society and employment. Our children are denied a good education because liberal academicians, most of whom have very little experience in the workplace, dominate university campuses. Where are the conservative professors? Where are the administrators who have a background in the private sector? One of my best Shakespearean professors at Auburn University had retired from the scrap metal business before he became a professor.

How many people over the age of 50 or 60 have major corporations hired in the last two years? If major corporations had not hired any of several minorities in the past two years, the Justice Department would be investigating, and there might also be congressional investigations as well. Most certainly there would be civil law suits. The "baby boomers" do not have a reputation for complacency. The age for many people to receive full Social Security benefits is now 67. Where are the programs and initiatives supporting this level of diversity for older citizens who must continue working regardless of age, race, and gender?

Age is a superset under which all other groups live and prosper. And people over 50, 60 and above must be represented at all corporate and organizational levels. Politicians, also, need to look at their campaign and office staffs to see if they are also practicing diversity while courting the older voters.

Diversity is what has made American great; however, if we practice only half of the concept of diversity, we discriminate against half of our diverse population. That is not practicing diversity. Nine appointed lawyers do not have enough diversity of perspective and background to understand the broad issues and all its related ramifications. That is not good for citizens, business, politics, nor is it good for America. It is that lack of diversity on the Supreme Court that underscores the problem of legislating from the bench. And that is why we have diverse state and federal elected legislatures responsible to the people to address constantly changing issues.

Perhaps the Supreme Court should attend diversity training. I doubt they will. So, Congress and citizens should insist that some of them experience true diversity from the perspective of being a former Supreme Court Justice. It will be good for them and good for us.

Michael Opitz
Republican 6th District
2nd Vice Chair
Marietta, Georgia