So what do we finally make of that feminist lecture series, given the more extensive information I’ve posted below? My concern about this comes from combining the lecture series issue with something David Frum noted the other day on his blog.
According to Frum, Harriet Miers was one of those who urged the administration not to aggressively challenge the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy when Grutter v. Bollinger came before the Court. If that’s true, it is a hugely important fact. Put that fact together with the lecture series and, despite the ambiguities, we begin to have reason to doubt that Miers really is a stealth conservative.
I’ve been more disposed than most to accept the sacrifice of an established conservative record and high quality intellectual paper trail for the sake of an easier confirmation battle. I understand the president’s judgement that a massive confirmation battle could undermine his ability to get other things done. So I’ve been inclined to get over my disappointment and go along. I’ve also believed that, given the decision, prolonged internal squabbling was counter-productive for all concerned. But that was all based on the assumption that Harriet Miers really is a stealth conservative. If David Frum is right about Miers’ position on Grutter, however, we begin to have reason to doubt that Miers really is what she’s cracked up to be. And again, put the Grutter issue together with the lecture series, and we’re looking at what now seems more likely to be another Sandra Day O’Connor than a stealth Scalia. I’d be delighted to be convinced that this worry is unfounded. As Kathryn says, I want to believe. But at this point, I begin to doubt.