"Be the change you want to see"

Words according to Gandhi. Well I've got news for you dude, change is relative to the scope of your imagination, both in the good way and bad, but how far you see is definitely a limiting factor.

An example of this is the Army. The Army is a great micro-ish society that I can use to make a point, though these efforts will undoubtedly be compounded by the very mission orientated nature of the Army. But then again, should society not strive towards that goal? Anyways, the Army's premier source of officer commission is obviously West Point, their little crown jewel. Anyways, the racial composition of West Point is engineered to reflect the diversity of the Army as a whole. It does beg the question though, if the Army's goal here is to promote diversity, then wouldn't it make sense to create more role models for people of ethnicity to enlist and join? But then, that brings in a whole other issue of competency, but more on that particular topic later. So should the Army be modeling its officer corps to reflect its enlisted ranks or use it to drive diversity in the enlisted ranks?

So Obama just nominated Elena Kagan to fill John Paul Steven's impending vacancy. Solicitor General Kagan, is yet another alumni of the fabulously well entrenched elite level establishment. She is a graduate of Harvard Law (c/o 86, not that you really care), first female Dean of HLS, was the government's lawyer for a while, but interestingly enough has never served in a judicial capacity before.

Being 50 years of age, she is young as shit. Considering the lifetime appointment of a SC Justice, that's at least 20 years of interpreting the constitutionality of well....anything of consequence I suppose. That's two additional presidential administrations, in a time where issues like choice, immigration, personal rights, government intervention in the economy, claims of "national security" and a whole host of other stuff that may crop up in the next two decades would find themselves partially determined by that woman.

Which is a pretty clever ploy on Obama's part. He would be betting on her lifespan on the bench to land back on a Democratic president, assuming we stay on the sin/cos curves that have defined our national political trend.

In the short run, Kagan's nomination would not tip the scales in any particular way seeing how she is middle of the road in most cases. However, the Court will shift in the years to come, and being a long term anchor on the court, her influence may pay off for liberals in the future.

But anyways, I couldn't really care less if she got appointed or not, her way of thinking and her processes are locked in. Let's talk about her education. Or, more accurately, the people who run our country.

If nominated, the Supreme Court would be comprised of Yale or Harvard Law students. Check this out:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Harvard College '76, Harvard Law '79

Justice Antonin Scalia, Harvard Law '60

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Harvard Law '61

Justice Clarence Thomas, Yale Law '74

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, attended Harvard Law where she was an editor of the Law Review and received a recommendation from its Dean

Justice Stephen Breyer, Harvard Law '64

Justice Samuel Alito, Yale Law '75

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Yale Law '79

(source: http://cmclymer.xanga.com/726869793/harvard-and-yales-dominance-of-government/)

But wait! What does this all mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_in_the_United_States

There are, a FUCK TON of other law schools in America, and there are quite a few that are respectable and comparable to Yale and Harvard, such as these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States#Schools_that_consistently_rank_in_the_top_14

But yet, it only seems like we're dipping into these two schools to interpret our constitution at the highest level. Imagine the hard-ons YLS and HLS profs must get knowing they're effectively planting the seeds that will one day steer our country. Or don't. I would also imagine these profs are somewhat old. Reminds me of a joke about a student who would do anything in a class to get a better grade....well, almost anything. Another time maybe, when I don't have a final the next morning.

So the question really is, do we draw from these two schools because they are the absolute best? Is it harmful to only draw from this elite (even by Ivy league standards) selection pool? Are we limiting ourselves to what we see by only drawing from this limited education source?