Most readers are aware that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has a new book and has been heavily promoting it. See my The Wise Latina Speaks, And A Liberal Drools (cross-posted here) and More “Wise Latina” Drivel  for recent discussion of it.

Now comes Charles Johnson with an excellent, long expose of  The Surprising Details About Sonia Sotomayor’s College Past That You Won’t Find in Her New Book.

Johnson mined archives at Princeton — something Senate researchers apparently never did in vetting her for appointment first to the Second Circuit and then the Supreme Court — and uncovered a rich vein of leftist and anti-American and anti-white drivel along with calls for racial and ethnic quotas in hiring and admissions.

Read the whole thing, since I’m going to mention only one item — quite mild by comparison, but revealing nevertheless — from later in Sotomayor’s career.

While careful in her book not to associate with the “down with whitey” attitudes of many Latino students, Sotomayor wasn’t so circumspect in a speech she gave before the TWC [Third World Center, on whose board Michelle Obama also served while at Princeton] on November 7, 1996, entitled, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity.”

At Princeton, I began a lifelong commitment to identifying myself as a Latina, taking pride in being Hispanic, and in recognizing my obligation to help my community reach its fullest potential in this society,” she said. “Accion Puertorriquena, the Puerto Rican group on campus then, and the Third World Center… provided me with the anchor I needed to ground myself in this new and different world.”

Note the rich irony (or unintentional humor) of Sotomayor becoming a committed Latina only after her arrival at Princeton, where as a “diversity” admit she was admitted at least in part so that other Princeton students could learn from exposure to her different culture. As Roger Clegg and I wrote in “Against Diversity” (and I had earlier written similarly here):

Admitting blacks and Hispanics so that whites can be exposed to them has led to some almost comic absurdities. The [New York] Times article just cited , for example, seems in places like an unintentional parody. Author Sara Rimer notes that by the 1980s colleges had begun establishing diversity deans, ethnic studies courses, and ethnic and racial affinity houses because “minorities needed places where they could learn about their cultures and relax and feel comfortable on campus.” In other words, students imported to diversify campuses were assisted in segregating themselves so they could learn about the cultures they were admitted in large part to represent.

Princeton, in short, like other selective institutions that lower admissions standards for blacks and Hispanics to promote “diversity,” is at least to a degree responsible for creating the very “difference” to which it believes other students must be exposed.