Julian Zelizer: Senate Should Accept Kagan's '95 'Challenge'
[Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book is "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security: From World War II to the War on Terrorism," published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.]
In 1995, Elena Kagan published a lengthy book review in the University of Chicago Law Review, titled "Confirmation Messes, Old and New," in which she was critical of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees....
The second question that has emerged has to do with the senior thesis here at Princeton University. (Full disclosure: I was not at Princeton while she was a student here and have never met the nominee.)
The thesis examined the failures of socialist politics in New York in the decades leading up to the New Deal. It is a study, she wrote, about how "Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism."
The thesis examines how New York socialists became politically ineffective and marginal during this time as a result of internal political and doctrinal disputes.
Some commentators have pointed to the thesis as evidence that she was sympathetic to socialism....
To rely on undergraduate work to make judgments about a nominee is a mistake.
During these important years, the best students explore different ideas and try to understand alternative perspectives as they shape their own intellectual future. We would hope that as undergraduates, students demonstrate the capacity to examine a wide range of ideas rather than limiting themselves to their own particular positions.This is especially important for students who go into the law.
More importantly, senators must realize that, as my colleague Professor Sean Wilentz (her undergraduate adviser) said, "Because you study something does not mean you endorse that thing."...
Read entire article at CNN.com
In 1995, Elena Kagan published a lengthy book review in the University of Chicago Law Review, titled "Confirmation Messes, Old and New," in which she was critical of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees....
The second question that has emerged has to do with the senior thesis here at Princeton University. (Full disclosure: I was not at Princeton while she was a student here and have never met the nominee.)
The thesis examined the failures of socialist politics in New York in the decades leading up to the New Deal. It is a study, she wrote, about how "Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism."
The thesis examines how New York socialists became politically ineffective and marginal during this time as a result of internal political and doctrinal disputes.
Some commentators have pointed to the thesis as evidence that she was sympathetic to socialism....
To rely on undergraduate work to make judgments about a nominee is a mistake.
During these important years, the best students explore different ideas and try to understand alternative perspectives as they shape their own intellectual future. We would hope that as undergraduates, students demonstrate the capacity to examine a wide range of ideas rather than limiting themselves to their own particular positions.This is especially important for students who go into the law.
More importantly, senators must realize that, as my colleague Professor Sean Wilentz (her undergraduate adviser) said, "Because you study something does not mean you endorse that thing."...