Gem Reads

A Wise Latina Knows that White is Not Neutral July 14, 2009

So I think that what Sessions and his ilk are really afraid of is that Sotomayor WILL DULY (rather than will not unduly) use her life experiences as a Supreme Court judge.  Have not the dozens of white Supreme Court justices in US history relied on their life experiences to make sense of the worlds that enter their chambers?  They even get to decide who enters!  And of course it’s not just based on their experiences, but it’s reasonable to believe it was and is a factor.  And probably an unconscious factor in a lot of cases.  Or are we to believe that those justices were all so self-aware, since of course they were all trained in the most elite law schools, that they can see every bias that seeps from their pores?  Since they all grew up with the self-doubt that comes from always feeling different?

I would bet Sotomayer is much more aware of her biases and more skilled at setting them aside than the white justices who have never had to question their privilege.  As Eugene Robinson so insightfully put it:

Republicans’ outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor’s musings about how her identity as a “wise Latina” might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any “identity” — black, brown, female, gay, whatever — has to be judged against this supposedly “objective” standard.

Who’s Identity Politics? Washington Post, July 14, 2009

The insidiousness of white male privilege means that we all–not just white men, but all of us–are unconscious of it. We perpetrate the idea that white is neutral and automatically impartial when we don’t ask Justice Roberts about his life experiences and how they might lead to judicial activism (another good Post columnist EJ Dionne, The Real Court Radicals).  But put a Latina up there, and reflexively we wonder if she can be impartial, objective and wise

Her record clearly says she can be.  The level of detail in her written opinions shows diligence and a willingness to go beyond her own experience.  Sotomayor knows that (as Carolyn Hax put it, yes a relationship advice columnist), “It’s a problem in all areas of human interaction, where the limits of our experience are mistaken for the limits of what is true.”  She is looking for truth (to the extent that a blunt instrument will allow).

Every politician knows that a good life story matters.  A good campaign doesn’t just tackle the issues, but launches a compelling personal narrative–the kind of narrative that creates a loyal following and ultimately votes (Obama didn’t invent that, his was just pretty compelling).  Every politician promises that his/her values and her/his story will serve the people.  That sexual affairs aren’t just peccadilloes but pecca-delicious shows that we expect the personal to become political (no matter how tenuous the link between extramarital affairs and, say, stimulus) (economic stimulus).

Those of us in social justice movements know that life experience counts.  It’s what motivates us toward the movement.  It motivates our strategies too.  Isn’t our fear of marriage equality and other social issues going before the Supreme Court “too early” a fear that those justices have not had the life experience necessary to rule in an impartial way?  That their religious (Sotomayor would be the 6th! Catholic) and jingoistic life experiences will blind them to the truth, but not in a “justice is blind” kind of way, but “ignorance is bliss” kind of way?

And speaking of impartiality and objectivity–in the sometimes cynical world view that I hold (and witness), don’t you sometimes argue for the conclusion you want, using your skills as a writer and thinker (honed by yours truly as a professor), to hide obfuscate mediate your bias?

Sessions knows her life story matters.  I think he knows and and even agrees with Sotomayor when she says (at the end of the YouTube clip but watch the whole thing so you can hear Sotomayor laugh to herself knowingly), that life experiences should “not command a result” but that they do “add value to the process” (for Obama the value is empathy).  He’s just afraid of the result.  And the trend.  But he needn’t worry just yet.  There are, after all, 9 Supreme Cout justices and Sotomayor, for all her wisdom, will be just one.