Is Sotomayor a "Racist"?
You be the judge:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
posted by wt @ 12:26 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Instead of asking, perhaps you could explain how it might be "racist."
-js
I would presume you've read the whole speech and not just a sound bite, but just in case--I think it makes a lot more sense in context (as in, it's a lighthearted quip and not a real statement).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2
Somehow I missed that you linked to it (on my browser, it showed up the same color as the other text).
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Sure, I can explain.
The context of the speech, including the passage I quote and well as the one Amy quotes, indicates she sees inherent differences in the life experiences of whites and Latinas. These differences are like a shortcut to being a better judge -- white people can gain the jurisprudential skills associated with these experiences, but they have to work hard in order to do so, and they don't always. (incidentally, is isn't clear why she thinks whites can gain them, since she has no idea what kinds of skills these are).
So I think there's a plausible argument that it's "racist" to say there qualities about living life as a Latina that, on the whole, make you a "better" judge.
If a white judge said that something inherent about being white tends to make you a better judge, though of course non-whites can always catch up by working hard, I think that person would be branded a racist.
The question, then, and why I posted it, is whether we can really use that kind of standard here. Maybe it's racist for the white person but not for Sotomayor.
I think it's less important that Sotomayor be able to learn about the "white experience" when it's one that predominates and primarily shapes American society, and in particular the judicial system (it's indisuptable that our judicial system was founded on values that are primarily European).
Basically, she's had to learn it in order to be so prominent in the legal field. Wheras white people don't have to learn about the "latina experience" in order to live their daily lives or even to practice law.
I can't divorce this notion from the fact that yes, I do think white people would have to learn more in order to take the experience of others into account. Boohoo? There are so many inherent advantages that come with being white that I can't really feel too bad for the poor white judges.
Finally, I do think her ultimate point was that her experience made her different (which few would dispute, including Samuel Alito), not that it made her better (as I said, it's pretty clear that the "wise latina woman" aspect was a self-effacing quip).
I think her point is that a latino woman with her background is far more likely than a white male judge to have gone through varied experiences. This is an important attribute , i think , in being a good judge and inaccurate or racist in my opinion.
You say; "So I think there's a plausible argument that it's "racist" to say there qualities about living life as a Latina that, on the whole, make you a "better" judge."
What I was looking for was that argument. I mean, it's not necessarily racist to suggest that different races have different skills or inclinations. It would clearly be racist to say that persons of hispanic descent are genetically superior judges. It would not be racist to say that persons of hispanic descent are "more often than not" better speakers of Spanish because of their cultural and national history.
The task here is to determine which sort of claim Sotomayor was making. It seems to me that it's the latter non-racist sort. Though her claim is different because the causal story for what makes hispanic judges superior (as opposed to better Spanish speakers) is pretty hazy. Into that haze seeps suspicions of racism (because that would make the causal story crystal clear).
And of course racism is deeply dependent on the race of the speaker. Compare Michael Richards with Chis Rock. Accusations of race often neglect that obvious and uncontroversial fact. You're not neglecting it, I'm just saying...
-js
Just to be safe: I did not mean to suggest that hispanic individuals share a single language, cultural history, or national home. It's late, I can't leave WT unrebutted, and, full disclosure, I'm a secret racist.
-js
"So many inherent advantages that come with being white"? Really? Pray tell. Preferential college admissions? Government contracting set-asides? Special loan programs? Private race-based scholarship funds? Just wondering when, as a white person, I can expect these things. I've worked hard for everything I've achieved and so I bristle (as I'm sure many do) when somebody insinuates that I've had success because of back-slapping, good ol' boy networks, the same way a minority would bristle at the charge that they have achieved success only through affirmative action programs.
I'm sorry last Anonymous, I'm honestly having a hard time taking your statement as a serious question, rather than a rant against affirmative action.
One doesn't have to have come out of a cigar-smoking, back-slapping back room to have received the inherent advantages of being white. As I don't know who you are, I can't give you specifics of how you've benefitted, only state that I'm reasonably sure that you have.
If you are completely opposed to that notion, it doesn't sound like you're ever going to agree, no matter what kind of explanation I give. If you want to feel that the big mean affirmative action programs have caused you harm, then you're going to feel that way.
Does this help? http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
Also, this also might help:
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/signe/art_images/sw011703d_lr.jpg
Post a Comment
<< Home