The perils of groupthink....

Michael Filozof over at American Thinker has a VERY good post about Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.  His article doesn't worry about her lack of real courtroom experience or anything like that.  Instead he points out that her appointment will make the court entirely of people who attended and/or graduated from either Harvard or Yale.   Via Borepath comes a relevant quote from Balko:

With Kagan, Supreme Court will get yet more diverse: It will have Catholics from Harvard or Yale, an African-American from Harvard or Yale, women from Harvard or Yale, a Hispanic from Harvard or Yale, and a Jew from Harvard or Yale.

I've posted before how prevalent groupthink can become--we've seen it with our supposed representatives once they've been assimilated into the culture in Washington.  Groupthink is both useful and dangerous.  It is useful because everyone involved speaks the same language, comes from the same mindset and so can come to a mutual understanding much quicker. 

It is dangerous because there is no opinion that is not formed within that group and its history.  It is wholly homogeneous and insular.  Ideas become self-reinforcing and any dissent or any differing point of view is seen as 'other' and therefore wrong.  It is bad enough that most in the executive branch have the same background (Harvard or Yale) but to now have the judicial branch have that same makeup does not bode well for the rest of the world that did not go to Harvard or Yale.  Because in such a small world, the rest of us are behind the line that marks 'Here be dragons.' or as they refer it us 'flyover country'.