All political institutions require the public to view them as legitimate (i.e., public confidence and trust) in order to operate effectively. Courts are said to be especially dependent on public trust as they lack purse and sword to enforce their orders. This study will focus on one political theory known as descriptive representation, which posits that institutions enhance their political legitimacy by reflecting the gender, ethnic and racial make-up of the American population. Such institutional diversity not only helps realize the ideals of popular sovereignty, but also sends an important message to historically underrepresented groups that they are welcome in the halls of power. Given the spate of criticism of the Judiciary in recent years, the enhancement of the courts? political legitimacy has never been more timely and important. Accordingly, the research question at issue in this project is: how does increased diversity on the federal bench impacts citizens? views about the legitimacy of U.S. courts?
An innovative research design will be used for this project ? a series of experiments using a national random sample of subjects and conducted on the internet. Experiments have a critical advantage over traditional surveys, for they establish causation, and not mere correlation. The data collected for this survey will enable a wide array of researchers in the social sciences, the legal academy, and the federal government to better understand the relationship between race/gender and institutional legitimacy. The data will prove especially useful to scholars of Congress, the bureaucracy, the presidency, race and gender politics, and public opinion ? many of whom are engaged with questions about the changing demography in the U.S., and its impact on American politics. With the election of the first African American president, diversity in our government has never been more salient an issue.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE My project examines two prominent normative theories supporting diversity on the federal bench: descriptive and substantive representation. Both theories posit that, in order for political institutions to be legitimate, there must be diversity amongst their leaders. Legitimacy is equated with institutional acquiescence (here, voluntary obeyance with a court's order). The theory of descriptive representation, used by President Bill Clinton, states that our political institutions should mirror (or "look like") the make-up of our diverse population in order to appear legitimate. The theory of substantive representation is used by President Barak Obama. He argues that more people from marginalized groups (including minorities and women) should be appointed to the bench because they are more likely than white men to understand the plight of disadvantaged litigants. These diverse judges will then render decisions sensitive to this plight.[1] Using a national random sample of U.S. citizens, I tested empirically whether these political theories had any bases in fact. I used an experimental design to test the theories using refutable hypotheses. This method is the only way one could obtain suitable data on citizens’ views on the relationship between varying levels of minority/gender diversity and legitimacy. Were a simple survey taken, the level of diversity would be static. In the descriptive representation experiments (one race, one gender), the treatments were mock newspaper articles, each reporting a different level of racial or gender diversity on the bench, and the true percentages of these groups in the U.S. population. In the gender experiment, I found only women of color have a positive relationship between gender diversity and legitimacy for the courts; when they read women on the bench mirrored women in the population, legitimacy levels for this group rose (compared to the control group). In the race experiment, I found that, when blacks learn they are under-represented on the bench their legitimacy levels drop (compared to the control group). These experiments also revealed the presence of white male backlash when diversity on the bench threatens their dominance. In both experiments, white men’s legitimacy levels rose (compared to the control group) when they believed women or minorities were under-represented on the bench. Black men also experienced a backlash as the percentage of women on the bench rose. These findings held true notwithstanding one’s political ideology (suggesting not a political explanation for backlash, but a socio-psychological explanation). However, the magnitudes of these variations in legitimacy levels were relatively small. Finally, white men have the lowest baseline levels of legitimacy towards the U.S. courts contradicting the common wisdom that marginalized groups, like minorities and women, have the lowest levels of legitimacy towards the courts. In the substantive representative experiments (one gender, one race), I again used mock newspaper articles, this time inserting pictures to indicate the races or genderg of the judges deciding identical Title VII discrimination cases (the control group read the same decision without pictorial reference). Refuting the theory, I found neither minorities nor women have more support for a pro-minority or pro-female ruling (compared to the control group) because the decision was rendered by by one of their own. To the contrary, women’s levels of support dropped when a woman presided over the case (compared to the control group) and minorities’ levels of support fell when an African American presided over the case (compared to the control group). The same was true of men and whites; their support dropped when a white or male judge rendered such a decision. In sum, in the descriptive representation experiments, I found some empirical evidence to support normative theory, though the magnitude of diversity’s impact on legitimacy was small. I also found evidence of white male backlash in both experiments, which lowers overall legitimacy for the courts. Finally, I found white men, and not women and minorities as previously assumed, have the lowest legitimacy levels for the U.S. courts. In the substantive representation experiments, I rejected the null hypotheses, that diversity increases support for the courts through substantive decision-making. Instead, the results suggest same sex backlash (gender/race of judge matching gender/race of citizen) when a judge decides a "close" discrimination case in favor of the female or minority complainant. This project has major implications for judicial appointment politics. Though a diversity strategy can be justified by other normative theories, presidents must be careful before making empirical claims about the relationship between diversity and legitimacy, at least as it relates to the U.S. courts. [1] President Carter, the first president to implement wide-scale diversification of the federal bench, relied on equitable principles to justify his affirmative action efforts. However, in Richmond v. J.A. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action was an impermissible remedy for societal discrimination; only evidence of specific discrimination by the defendant would suffice.
