In recent times, the U.S. Supreme Court has become more diverse than it ever was. Its demographic makeup became more diverse in August 2010 when Elena Kagan was sworn in as the 112th justice. Three of the nine justices are women; in August 2009, the Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. One justice is African American—Clarence Thomas was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 to fill retiring justice Thurgood Marshall’s seat on the bench. In 2010, five justices are younger than 65 years of age—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Be that as it may, one could argue Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court resulted in a less diverse court. When Kagan was sworn in, she became the second woman appointed by President Obama since taking office, and she became the eighth of nine justices with an Ivy League education. An obsession with the Harvard-Yale pedigree, perhaps? If so, President Obama is not alone with this “obsession” when it comes to identifying candidates to serve on the nation’s highest court. Only retiring Justice John Paul Stevens studied law at a school other than Harvard or Yale. Additionally, in terms of geographic and religious diversity, two Supreme Court justices hail from states other than New York, New Jersey, or California; and none of the justices are Protestants.

Question

1. If a recruitment source has been proven successful in the past for yielding highly qualified talent, what is the harm in continuing to draw from that source to recruit employees?

2. Is having a diversity of backgrounds in organizations as important as having demographic diversity? Why or why not?