Quantcast

Search our Archives!


Advertisement

The Wide Angle

March 20, 2012 | 2:14 pm

The Times Hits the Nail on the Head

Posted by  David A. Lehrer


Ten days ago Community Advocates wrote an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times decrying a recently passed statute that authorized the state to survey all judges and judicial applicants in California as to their sexual orientation. We commented that the law was “pernicious in its application and insidious in its potential impact.”

In today’s editorial the Times agreed,

Los Angeles Times

 

The private lives of California’s judges
In the name of diversity, the Legislature has overstepped with an annual survey asking about their sexual orientation

State lawmakers may have had the best of intentions when they approved legislation last year to require that California judges be asked in an annual demographic survey about their sexual orientation. The goal was to assess diversity on the bench. Instead,

the Legislature has inappropriately and ineffectively intruded into the private lives of judges

(emphasis added).

A good portion of the judiciary seems to think so too. Answering all or any of the survey questions is optional, and 40% of those who responded opted not to answer the question about sexual orientation, according to the recently released survey, which also queried jurists about their race, ethnicity and gender. The Administrative Office of the Courts — the staff agency to the Judicial Council of California — is required by the law to collect the information on all judges and judicial officers in the state. The data are released in the aggregate, arranged by court systems, not by individual jurists; no one is identified. However, in some small jurisdictions, that anonymity may be meaningless. For example, in the Mariposa court, both judges who responded to the survey declined to say whether they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Overall, 672 judges and officers, from the Supreme Court to the trial courts, declined to answer. An additional 1,005 did answer the question. (Nineteen said they were lesbian, 17 said they were gay, and one answered transgender.)

...

This was an ill-conceived attempt at promoting diversity on the part of the Legislature (emphasis added).

Read the full story here.

Tracker Pixel for Entry
The Jewish Journal believes that great community depends on great conversation. So, jewishjournal.com provides a forum for insightful voices across the political and religious spectrum. Bloggers are not employees of The Jewish Journal, and their opinions are their own. Our entire blog policy is here. Please alert us to any violations of our policy by clicking here. (editor@jewishjournal.com). If you'd like to join our blogging community, email us. (webmaster@jewishjournal.com).
  • A Great Day

    4.12.13 at 3:16 pm | Interesting speakers across a wide array of. . .

  • Turning Back the Clock

    4.10.13 at 11:15 am | Urging that gender criteria should be. . .

  • Bullying and Reason

    3.12.13 at 1:21 pm | By many measures, teenagers today are faring. . .


More from JewishJournal.com

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Publication

JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.



About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive






Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2013 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page