Wise Latina Woman: Not Racist, But...
racism n. 1. a doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior (Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition 1979).
As I’ve said before, racism is such a repulsive doctrine that charges of prejudice should not be made casually.
Clearly critics of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, do not share this sentiment. I just Googled “Sotomayor racist” and got 2,450,000 hits. The charges of racism come from a Who’s Who of the American Right: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Tom Tancredo. The accusation is based on the Olmos Memorial Lecture that she gave at U. C. Berkeley in 2001 (for a full transcript, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1 ). Near the end she opined, “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.”
A glance at the definition of racism demonstrates that this is an unwarranted charge. Although the Judge claims that her own race is superior, the supposed superiority is based on differing experiences rather than inherent differences.
However, even though the speech is not racist, it does raise some questions: To what experiences does she refer? How do those experiences inform her legal decisions? Can a judge be impartial if she has personal experiences that bear on the case in front of her, and shouldn’t she recuse herself from such cases? Is it fair to have a system of justice in which the outcome of a case will vary with the judge’s personal experiences, making it impossible for a citizen to know what the law is prior to going to court?
I urge the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Judge Sotomayor these questions during her confirmation hearings this summer, and I hope that a healthy debate follows. In the meantime, the Logic Critic gives Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, and Tancredo…
1 Blade - Not even an argument.
posted by Li Kim Grebnesi at
6:35 PM
2 Comments:
Having married a wise Latina woman who, like Judge Sotomayor, has also lived with type-1 diabetes, I reflexively like the idea of her being on the Supreme Court. However, I wish her judicial record was not so consistently one of favoring the power of government over individuals and businesses, which I think is the wrong direction for the Court.
The infamous "wise Latina" remark is less troubling than her record, but as you said, raises questions. Certainly if you replaced "Latina woman" with "white man" and "white male" with "Black or Latina woman" in that statement, it would fail the reverse sniff test.
The way I read her remark is that when one comes from (or identifies with) a culture that is accustomed to a long history of adversity, it confers a kind of nobility, perhaps akin to the Romantic "noble savage" mythos. It is a seductive image - the noble Native American crying over a polluted forest - the noble urban Black man, struggling to have his talents recognized - the noble Latina woman struggling to keep her family strong despite poverty and a language barrier - etc. Conversely, members of a culture accustomed to wealth and privilege are supposed to have experiences that are less "rich." They are shallow, self-indulgent and entitled. Rather than possessing a nobility which implies a purity of motive and a profound connectedness to fundamental values, these "white males" will presumably act from narrow self-interest and venality.
These stereotypes are every bit as poisonous as those promoted by bigots, yet Hollywood trades on them every day, and people from all walks of life accept them unthinkingly, from nominees to the Supreme Court, to that guy in the line for movie tickets. In the 1980's, Saturday Night Live even did a skit that mocked the "noble, proud Latina" stereotype. Furthermore, if you go back far enough, every culture brings a history of adversity. You might even say that culture is itself the fossil record of how a people have dealt with major existential challenges.
What every nominee to the Supreme Court should remember is that their decisions have far more impact on those who are poor and struggling than those whose station in life acts as a buffer against the rough hand of the law, regardless of ethnic background. Having a personal or cultural history of struggle should not be necessary for awareness of these facts, nor is it a guarantee of sympathy for the "little guy."
Thanks, Peter. As you know, I share your concern about the growing power of government over individuals and businesses. However, a voracious regime can not be blamed on judges - even the most activist judge (in which category Ms. Sotomayor does not qualify) must make some pretense of following the law. The real culprits are the politicians who pass the laws in the first place - and the voters who keep returning them to office.
Post a Comment
<< Home