I had to take a step back when I read Tara Stroll’s latest column on Harriet Miers and affirmative action (“Where did equality go?” page 4, Nov. 14). I had never thought of l’affaire Miers as proof of the inherent folly of affirmative action policies. Although Stroll may have uncovered an idea not much discussed in print — that the nomination itself was a case of affirmative action — I think she missed the larger point. I agree that President Bush probably nominated a woefully unqualified candidate because she was a woman. However, Stroll seemed to write that off to a misguided, knee-jerk attempt at diversity on Bush’s part. I give him more credit.

When Miers withdrew her bid, my mother opined that, if the president’s goal had been precisely to ensure that a woman would not end up on the Court, yet to win himself credit meanwhile for nominating a woman, he couldn’t have done a better job. In short, he picked a sure loser on purpose (or his puppeteers did). I replied that, if I wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned in my own lifetime, I wouldn’t appoint a woman on a bet. The Alito nomination just goes further to confirm this administration’s agenda.

David Meadow SED ’06