Is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s a racist? Her comment that, “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,” is now being challenged as racist. Newt Gingrich correctly points out that if a white male nominee had said, “my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman,” that nominee would have to resign.
While Gingrich is correct, the problem with Sotomayor’s comment goes deeper than Sotomayor and her nomination. Our nation is struggling to get past racism. That we have an African-American president shows we’re doing okay. However, plenty of evidence exists to show that we still have a long way to go (see my article Political Correctness Creates Diversity Challenge for some of that evidence). Sotomayor’s comment fits that description.
For a long time, non-white males have been given a pass on comments that if made by a white male would constitute racism. Whether that pass was justified due to the enormous challenges facing minorities is history. I don’t want to go there. Sotomayor’s comments were made with the understanding that these comments were acceptable to her colleagues and to the mainstream media. Morally right or wrong that is a fact.
The question of whether or not Sotomayor is a racist (above and beyond this comment) should be easy to resolve. She has been a federal judge since 1991. That’s a lot of cases she’s ruled on. Any evidence of racism there? If yes, let’s have it.
As for President Obama, he supposedly wants the nation to move beyond its racist past. The President is certainly the nation’s moral leader in this endeavor; therefore I feel that it is up to him to decide when he wants us to move beyond that past. This is an opportunity for him to declare that racism of any kind is unacceptable including that directed at white males. That would be a bold, no-nonsense step forward for the nation. The nomination of Sotomayor, without that declaration, is a signal that at least for now, he is unable to move beyond it himself. I think I can understand that. However, that is still a loss.
{ 36 comments }
“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.”
Without hasn’t, it would absolutely be racist. With the key word hasn’t, the statement becomes reliant on the definition of “that life,” and thus much less clear.
Because she used the word hasn’t in that context, her statement is vague rather than racially prejudiced.
The problem is you see racism perpetuated by minorities to hold more water, that is YOUR problem. Others like you are holding us back, not Whites.
I am not sure I understand. Can you please expand on your comments?
I disagree with ” That we have an African-American president shows we’re doing okay. However, plenty of evidence exists to show that we still have a long way to go (see my article Political Correctness Creates Diversity Challenge for some of that evidence). Sotomayor’s comment fits that description.” What do you mean by “we’re doing okay”? Who is the “we”? The GOP? Just because you took her out of context doesn’t mean she is a racist. Why are you scared to be judged by the woman Latina hand? What are you afraid of? Racism is not the only thing that troubles America, what about social class? There’s discrimination on social class and it’s totally legal.
I’ m a democrat-Judge S. is a racist… she has been chosen because of future votes from the Hispanic community and to set the stage for Amnesty for the illegals who are sucking us dry!!! Judge S. is/was a member of La Raza (the race) supports amnesty,welfare,instate tuition , drivers lic. for all illegals..and the takeover of this country by Hispanics by creating tension between afro/americans and whites-you can see this happening in most blogs…we live in a class system all races have poor,middle,upper so the BS about whites being rich and afro/Americans poor is BS!!!! She is a product of Hugo Chavezs’ thought bring the Americans down to their level!!!! press 2 for English!!! Don’t let her in she is a bring down America person!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
For anyone who would like to NOT take things out of context.
“that life” is referring to living the life of “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences” from my understanding of the English language.
The thing that makes the statement racist in my view is the implication that someone being born a Latina will have a richness of experience that a white male can’t possibly have and that it will make their opinions “better” (key word) than that of a white male more often than not. Seems to suggest that being born a white male will put you at a disadvantage when compared to Latinas since your opinions will more often than not be worse… And why are they worse? Because since you weren’t born a Latina, you didn’t get richness of experience and therefore your opinions are more often than not worse than those of the Latina. I don’t know what you call thinking/hoping your race gives you an inherent superiority over other races that they can’t overcome, but I call it racist. At least that’s how I interpret it.
Ultimately, this seems like a single instance of bad wording on her part and I don’t really see anything else that would imply her being an actual racist. More could come out, but I’m not going on a hunt over it. As it is now, I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Though it would be nice to have a simple clarification at some point just to hear her say it directly.
No folks, this IS a racist comment no matter how you look at it. If you were to reverse it, it’s racist. If you play it forward, it’s STILL racist.
Take out the reference to her heritage and you still have an arrogent and condescending comment.
Lastly, I wouldn’t trust her to know what is “better” if my life depended on it!
If she had just said something like: “the richness of my experiences has granted me an insight that I feel is rare in our society..” Instead of bringing race into it at all, she could have just sounded hoity-toity better-than-thou instead of coming across as a racist.
WHY did she bring race into it if she did not intend to make herself out to be better than someone on the basis of her race?
She needs to withdraw. That was a prepared speech, not some blunder in speaking. Choose someone who isn’t going to judge based on something so ridiculous as skin color.
Here is the quote that has led some to accuse Sonia Sotomayor of “racism”:
“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.**” (Emphasis added.)
Is this “racist?” No! Of course not! Consider the following equivalent statement:
“I would expect that a Norwegian cyclist **who has been training for two years** is more likely to win the Tour de France than a Swedish cyclist **who has no legs**.”
Is this saying that Swedes are inferior to Norwegians? No. Is Sotomayor saying white males as a group are inferior to Latinas? Read her quote again, and think real hard.
(OK, here’s a hint–she’s making a comparison between the different experiences of individuals, not between the abilities of two different classes of people.)
So far, it seems like only white males have been too stupid to understand this distinction. But one should not come to any racist conclusions from this. After all, I figured it out, and I’m a white male.
Dan and Richard
I’ve read that speech. Her comment is not being taken out of context. It implies she, because of her race and gender, would reach superior conclusions than those of a white male because she a Latina. Heck in the very next line she was so kind as to point out that a couple of white men by name who has made faulty judgments in her opinion because they were white.
Wow first off let me say im all for equality and fairness but this is bs thru and thru. She obviously has ties to a group that if white would definitely ban her from the position she seeks. Furthermore as stated earlier by juan I don’t want our country to allow somone in power to change the way things are for her excuse the candidates race. I am firmly against illegals since im from Texas and all and I believe that if she is allowed in she will change the laws to make The United States of America into Mexico Major. This can’t be allowed to happen so in essence she should resign….
I’ll admit, on the surface, the offending comment appears loaded and easy to attack. It isn’t. First of all, there’s a game that is being played in America. The true meaning of “racism” is so obfuscated and obscured, no one has a clear understanding of what the other means when the term is used. Is the statement biased? Yes. Maybe predjudiced? Yes. Racist? No. Why? Because it’s true and doesn’t further the perpetuation of an inherent, historically and genetically based ideology of the superiority of one race over another. Her statement and beliefs have not been institutionalized. Those of the White male have. My experiences in a White dominated society have been drastcically different from those of the average White male. Perceptions formulated and reality experienced are factually different. If I dare say “we” as Black people have a history and civilization pre-dating European history, the average White assumption is that the mere idea is preposterous, fantacy, impossible, beyond consideration, etc. . Why so? Your belief system has been geared to automatically dismiss such a possibilty. Therefore it is not even a topic worthy of discussion…in your reality. Whites control the definitons, histories, originations, designations, determinations and intentions of everyone on the planet. You attempt to minimalize and marginalize the most of us into “minorities”, a convenient word coming strongly into vogue the past 25 or so years so as to imply “They don’t really matter”. It “gives you the right” to determine what is or isn’t real. So, after centuries of having carte blanche to create a world in your own image, the appearance of a mindset which no longer bows to that image is a threat, as well it should be. Times they are a changing.
First, I want to thank Dan for the link to Sotomayor’s speech, given in 2001.
She tries to make the case that there has historically been discrimination based on race and gender; no real arguments there. But it appears that she carries a huge chip on her shoulder and believes that her position as a judge gives her the right to opine solely as a Latina. That may or may not be OK in the lower levels of the judicial system, but this is the Supreme Court and judging cases with that kind of arrogance is uncalled for.
Following last year’s election, in which many were branded racists by the MSM because they didn’t like Obama’s politics or what he stood for (I mean really, would a white guy by the name of Barry O’Bama with the exact same credentials be in the White House today?), playing the whole racial thing is upsetting. Obama knew exactly what he wanted to here…just let the hysteria play out while he stands off to the side and have his very liberal selection get by without appropriate questioning during the confirmation hearings.
I read that whole speech. She is struggling with her own innate racial tendencies and it shows throughout. She is struggling with the very concept of race.
Her experience as a woman and as a latina, as rich as it may be, has no bearing on the interpretation of law. Justice should be blind.
Brett, your welcome…
I think her comment was inappropriate and poor judgment on her part.
Derek,
Justice isn’t blind and cannot be. I wish it could but it’s impossible unless well… We had all literally blind judges from birth. Even then you’d have the problem of sex.
The only way to achieve a court system at this point in our nations history that is “blind” is to have a very diverse group of people. Now – that group of people has to be qualified too! That is in my opinion what she would help us achieve.
For anyone male or female, black or white, rich or poor, heterosexual or gay not to understand that each of our experience gives us a unique perspective over someone who has not shared that same experience is naive and best and disingenuous at worst. Judge Sotomayor used the example of “white men” in this comment because for the length of the U.S. history the Supreme Court has been dominated primarily by “white men”. If it had been dominated by” Puerto Rican” men or even “African American” females her statement would have read “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 (Puerto Rican male or “African American female” **who hasn’t lived that life.” The key to her comment is “lived that life”. There is a comment in human life and religious doctarine that speaks to “having walked a mile in someone else shoes” It informs each of us. As a American born female married to a European born male our conversations often delve into the way we were raised and how we see the world. His point of view enriches my thinking and understanding of where he comes from. My life experiences enriches his views of both women and Americans. Judge Sotomayor appointment the the U.S. supreme court will only enhance the discussion and perspectives not dilute them. Both she, the court and the U.S. of America will be better because she is there. Not only will the white men get a new and perhaps different perspective of the world but so will Judge Sotomayor. And in the end we are all better for it.
I find it interesting that according to Obama we need to concerned with her childhood and upbringing. There’s plenty of stuff out there regarding her move from a housing project to a middle class neighborhood in her teens, private school, etc. She and her brother have done well for themselves, by working hard but by no means an unusual happenstance.
Obama said: “And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her.” Maybe she can tell that to her brother, who’s medical practice doesn’t accept Medicaid or Medicare, programs for the poor and elderly. (I forgot….he’s in a business to make some money for himself, not politics).
We’ve had Ginsburg (sp?) and O’Connor on the bench; Miers was rejected due to her inexperience. I don’t consider sex to be as big an issue as unfortunately will be brought up.
Affirmative Action has already destroyed America’s demographic base to stupidity…. Thanks feminists! Only in America (well, Britain too) is it cool to denigrate the white male now. Look at how far we’ve come with the rap music; what progress! I’d love to comment more, but Pat Buchanan says it best:
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-obamas-idea-of-justice-1553
Who is denigrating the “white male”?
What does rap music have to do with anything?
PS: I’m a 28 year old white male… computer programmer and listening to Cypress Hill streaming from pandora on my moto q…
!
“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.”
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment is simply stating the obvious.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 75 percent of inmates in state correctional institutions are black or Hispanic. In general for every 100,000 people in the United States, 3,535 are black, 1,177 are Hispanic, and 462 are whites.
Wow, this is so stupid my head hurts. Read the quote in context. She is specifically talking about judicial descisions around race and gender. And to her defense the vast majority of such descisions made by all white male courts have for the most part been absurd or, worse, barbaric. Just to pick one, in the Dred Scott case a bunch of white men decided not to decide by declaring “property can not sue its owner.” Yeah, I bet her life expiriences would have led her to a better descision than that.
What a much ado about nothing
Its not racist. In order for a person to be racist, racism being a form or oppression, they have to belong to a group that holds the power to oppress. In our society White Males are definitely more priviliged that minority Females. Whites and Males are agents of oppression, minorities and females are targets in our society.
She would have experiened life much differently than that of a White Male and I don’t see anything “racist” about her comment.
May 28, 2009
The Sotomayor remarks that she believes a Latina woman would make better, more richly informed
decisions than would a white man is extremely troublesome. For the same token “the criminal woman
would make better, more richly informed decisions on criminals than would a white honest man”.
So let Obama appoints representative of criminals to the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor view on death penalty for minorities is unfair because disproportionaly more minorities
are sentenced to death, shows where she come from and where she will sway the Supreme Court.
I am afraid she will try to set up a Central America type of “democracy” in U.S. and I will not vote
for any Senator or Representative who vote for her.
Bringing up the Dred Scott case? Really? To show that *white men* are always going to pick the wrong thing? That’s over 100 years old. I guess Abe Lincoln freed the slaves just so good ol’ whitey could keep oppressing them without having to waste money buying them? Obviously, there are no white men with “good” judgment. White males are incapable of embracing the concepts of modern civil rights.
With those statistics about “coloreds” vs. whites in jail, you must consider the statistics of conditions that the “coloreds” are currently living in. I doubt you are doing so.
I am not arguing that there are not white men getting away with murder and non-whites convicted where they are not guilty, but the idea that we need to accept – nay, promote racial identity as something acceptable in the Supreme Court to speed up societal balance is awful. The possible consequences of this many generations down the line, if accepted, scare me.
It sounds to me like a lot of people are missing the point, racist or not. I thought a good judge was supposed to be one that WOULD remove personal experience from judgement to prevent bias and not someone that judges BASED on personal experience, but I could be wrong. Also, based on her logic, white privaleged males should never be Supreme Court Judges. I think more people should be upset by the audacity of this woman.
That being said, she’s definitely a poor “judge” in terms of choice of words. Do I think she could hold reservations against white males? Absolutely. Thus, she’ll be a perfect fit in with this administration. The best part is how they are defending her, claiming the political outrage toward her comments is all “nonsense”. She will is just another choice in Obama’s streamlined continuity and by that I mean with politicians that want to raise our taxes before paying theirs, calling bills of wasteful spending “re-investing”, Eric Holder calling us a “Nation of Cowards”, and don’t even get me started on the “Fairness” Doctrine!
The more I think about the original question which inspired this blog, the more I come to the conclusion that, “No, America can’t escape its racist past!” As I pointed-out in my previous answer, an avoidance dance is being played in this country. Racism has to do with institutionalized, superiority based, oppression purposed thinking that undergirds educational systems, human and individual rights systems, international relations systems, etc. It is a pernicious, persistant, invisible, repugnant and egotistical system of lies and innuendoes which over the course of time are accepted as undeniable truths. Bias and prejudice aren’t even in the same league. When we begin to attack racism we are taking on a force that has been inculcated by the common man. We pass it along to our children as fact. Malcom X once said that if inner city Blacks were give mansions they’d soon convert them to slums because their mindset was it (ghetto life) was their natural state. Such is the power and influence of racism. Where did that idea come from? The legacy of slavery and the dehumanization of a people. Unfortunately, many adopted its teachings. The slave and the enslaved were both dehumanized. The roots of racism have spread nefariously like weeds intent on surviving. We all engage in them openly and silently on a daily basis whether its a Black who thinks study is only for Whites or a White who in his/her missionary zeal feels “They just need us to civilize them.” This stuff goes deep and America is not up to the task!
I understand how one aspect of racism is that it can be institutionalized, and propagated by the majority group which holds power. I do, however, have issues with the idea that it is exclusive to that group. If a person from any race makes a judgement about a fellow human being, based on the color of their skin, that constitutes a racist act. No human being is exempt from the potential to be a racist. I do, however, also have an issue with the idea that any certain group is inherently, and inescapably racist.
I believe that nobody, including Sotomayor, is above the possibility of racist tendencies. Hopefully her conformation hearing will reveal whether she has racist tendencies or not.
Mod Rep. Sir, your first recognition is accurate although minimalized. The institutionalization of racism is what continues to regenerate and reinvigorate its presence in America and the world. Its origination is/was most definitely with one group (European Romanticists), however it is now a global force. I say that you minimalize it because you show confusion between what the racists, ie. Blumenbach, Locke, Hume, Muller, et al, were proposing (racial/skin tone based classifications and associated inferiority/superiority) vs people making “judgments” about people , which we all do on a daily basis. Predjudice, bigotry and bias while associated with racism do not have the impact of racism. Unless of course you are attempting to redefine racism as developed at the University of Gottingen in the 1770′s. Secondly, your acceptance of the first premise of how a “majority” holding power can institutionalize and perpetuate its beliefs somewhat contradicts your statement that a certain group can not be inherently racist. It becomes invisible, lost in assumption! I’m sure you don’t view yourself as racist however, your thinking, as well as mine has been profoundly influenced by racism. To simplify the ball field I’m playing on: “If the academic and other cultural institutions we all hold dearly, view as somewhat sacred and trust without question were founded by individuals such as previously mentioned, we have been and are being taught the philosophies of thinkers who proudly declared “racist” opinions and beliefs. For in depth information about these thinkers, I recommend Martin Bernal’s “Black Athena”, Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”, Basil Davidson’s “Africa” history series (DVD/VHS). Racism has taken advantage of the tendency of definitions to be polluted and perverted over time. In the mean time, those who can benefit from the confusion do so and we all are at a loss.
Thanks to Dan for the link to the entire text of Sotomayor’s speech.
I’ve read many comments made at this site, and at first I thought that her statement probably was racist in nature, and then I read the entire text which more effectively places her statement in nearly full context of the whole of the ideas she was trying to deliver at that time and place to that particular audience.
Here is a little more quotation from the text, which is still out of the context of the ideas she was delivering in her speech, but just a little less so.
“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.
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.”
In a speech, the text alone is also out of the entire context of facial expressions, and I can see the possibility of a wry, joking smile at the time of making her alleged racist statement, implying that she was joking that she as a woman should be chosen over a man if that situation comes, “just because” she wants to be chosen!
No one really knows what Sotomayor meant except herself. Those who were there at the time would also have a better interpretation. And the rest of us can never make a determination based on one sentence pulled out of the middle of a long speech of many ideas, especially if we were not there to see her facial delivery also.
Here’s an analysis of her rulings in discrimination cases: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
I stopped reading this thread after the first 10 posts or so. So much dissection and verbal analysis. It is simple.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences (what experiences is she referring to?) would more often than not reach a better conclusion (what conclusion? it must be something racial since it is dependent upon a wise latina) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life (what life? at no point in all her ramblings has this woman specified what life she refers to or how it better qualifies her to INTERPRET AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION),”
All you hacks that insist this comment (and the many others like it since 1994) is not racist obviously have an agenda. She can do no wrong no matter what the evidence shows. However, those of you on the fence just realize one thing: ANYONE but a white person can get away with this kind of crap without fear. What does that tell you?
Wake up.
I stopped reading this thread after the first 10 posts or so. So much dissection and verbal analysis. It is simple.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences (what experiences is she referring to?) would more often than not reach a better conclusion (what conclusion? it must be something racial since it is dependent upon a wise latina) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life (what life? at no point in all her ramblings has this woman specified what life she refers to or how it better qualifies her to INTERPRET AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION),”
All you hacks that insist this comment (and the many others like it since 1994) is not racist obviously have an agenda. She can do no wrong no matter what the evidence shows. However, those of you on the fence just realize one thing: ANYONE but a white person can get away with this kind of crap without fear. What does that tell you?
Wake up.
Sotomayor has not said that she’s better than anyone by this statement. Newt’s comparison to her quote, “my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman,” is horiffic, and is not synonymous AT ALL!! however, a white man’s experience does make him more likely to come to a reasonable conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived HIS life. outside of the obvious difference between the “life experiences” of most white males, and most Latina females this statement to me parallels Sotomayor’s accurately, unlike Newt’s. No offence but people, let’s all remember the grammar we were taught back in grade school here. Really reading the words helps keep us from embellishing what people mean by them.
“That life” is NOT the part of the quote to be most closely scrutinized. The phrase “reach a better conclusion” is the most troubling one. Even more specifically, the word “better” indicates that she believes “Latinas” are better than white men. What exactly is a Latina? Is that term limited to certain kinds of hispanic women? It’s not clear. Let’s say a hispanic male takes his appeal (from let’s say, a murder conviction involving a dispute over whether his confession was voluntary or not) to the supremes, they grant cert., and she is on the bench. I suppose, by the richness of growing up Latina, she will better be able to understand why he may have killed someone and cast her vote accordingly, setting him free. That could be one way to use her rich life experience. Of course, a Latina cannot possibly be a racist, right? Just exchange “white male” with “Latina” if it really is not obvious. This would not be such a big deal if the far left hasn’t made race such a huge part of American discourse even now as we have a (partly) African-American President. The media will not call it like it is. They will not report “reverse” race/hate crimes nearly as often as they do white vs. minority crimes. Look up the “Wichita massacre” which is supposed to be made into a movie next year. Black vs. white atrocity (but in the movie, the killers will be white, not black and the victims’ races are changed too!) Maybe Atty General Eric Holder is right, we are all “cowards.”
Her comment is like Mein Kampf abridged, and Latinized.