On July 31, at the National Bar Association’s awards gala, former President Joe Biden proudly declared:
“I was proud to ask Kamala Harris to run with me and become the first Black woman to serve as Vice President of the United States. That was important.”
Let that sink in.
He didn’t say Kamala Harris was the most competent, experienced, or strategically aligned candidate. He didn’t highlight her policy chops, leadership track record, or ability to bring the country together. Instead, he celebrated her selection because she is a Black woman.
Likewise, Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, not on the grounds that she was the most qualified legal mind available, but because he “promised to build an administration that looks like America.”
This is not a critique of Harris or Jackson as individuals. It’s a critique of a political philosophy where race and gender become the qualifications.
The Danger of Symbolism Over Substance
Symbolism matters, but when it becomes the primary basis for appointments to the highest offices in the land, we enter dangerous territory. Political appointments should reflect competence, vision, leadership, and integrity—not a box-checking exercise to fulfill demographic quotas.
Kamala Harris was tasked with handling the border crisis. Her performance on this file was weak at best. Illegal immigration rose during her tenure, and her absence on the issue made headlines. For someone given such a vital responsibility, her disengagement was troubling.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, for her part, has not distinguished herself as a groundbreaking judicial thinker. Her appointment was historic, but her opinions often lack the clarity, legal precision, or intellectual depth of the great justices who came before her. Once again, the emphasis was on who she is, not what she brings to the bench.
What’s the Cost?
When public roles are filled based on identity politics rather than ability, three things happen:
- The public loses confidence in the integrity of the process.
- The individuals appointed are unfairly burdened—constantly scrutinized for being “diversity picks” rather than leaders in their own right.
- Meritocracy erodes, replaced by superficial optics designed to appeal to media headlines and activist checklists.
It’s worth asking: if Biden had picked a white male who performed like Harris, or a conservative judge with Jackson’s credentials, would their appointments have been celebrated? Or would they have been criticized as weak, underqualified, or incompetent?
Representation Should Matter—But So Should Merit
Of course, representation has a place. A government that reflects the diversity of its people sends a powerful message. But diversity without excellence is hollow. When identity becomes the credential, we risk promoting individuals not for their ideas or abilities, but for the optics they provide.
In the long run, this doesn’t just hurt public trust—it undermines the very people it aims to uplift. When we assume that women or minorities need extra help to succeed, we do them no favors. We infantilize them. We strip them of agency and cast doubt on their achievements.
Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson deserved better. They deserved to be chosen for what they could do, not just for what they represent.
Conclusion
America’s highest offices should not be diversity experiments. They should be filled by the best minds, the strongest leaders, and the most capable individuals—regardless of race or gender.
When a president says, “I chose her because she’s a Black woman,” he may think he’s being progressive. But in reality, he’s making a deeply regressive statement: that identity is more important than merit.
At AlainGuillot.com, we believe in equality of opportunity—not equality of outcome. And we believe that everyone deserves to be judged by the content of their character and the quality of their work—not the color of their skin.
Previous opinion posts