by publius
I'm getting extremely annoyed watching the media repeatly quote the "wise Latina" line without putting it in context. I saw it in the Post this morning, and have since seen it on TV a couple of times — with nary a word about context.
Basically, any reporter who quotes this line out of context is affirmatively misleading the public.
If you read the speech, you'll see that Sotomayor is in the middle of discussion of race and gender discrimination cases. She's saying that, in those type of cases, the experiences of minorities would hopefully lead them to reach better results as judges than all-white, all-male panels.
Now you may agree or disagree with that. But that's her argument. What she is emphatically NOT saying is that Latinas are better judges than white men. Yet, that's precisely the impression the media is giving — and it's inaccurate. We should expect these types of lies from Newt Gingrich — but the national media should be better. Indeed, the fact that Newt is making this very argument should tell the media everything they need to know about its credibility.
I'll say it again — reporting this line without providing context is inaccurate and grossly misleading to the public.
Below the fold, I've posted the excerpt from the speech where the line appears. You'll notice that the paragraphs both immediately preceding and following this line are explicitly about discrimination cases.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me
that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come
from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that
this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who
argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal
landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall
that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first
black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP
argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with
other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing
the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and
conditions of employment.
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.
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.
This text is complex enough that I’m not sure you are absolutely right that she’s limiting her discussion to discrimination cases. I agree that, interpreted charitably, she’s not claiming Latinas always make better judges than white guys. I think she’s saying diversity leads to better decision making over all.
I think it’s interesting that she is willing to consider the possibility that cultural and even physiological differences between men and women and even between ethnic groups affect how we think. And she said it in Berkeley.
The problem, though, is that the judiciary will never be as diverse as a democratically-elected legislature. So if diversity is good, judicial power is dangerous.
I agree with Pithlord. It’s not clear that she’s limiting her comments to discrimination cases, but that’s a plausible — and certainly the most defensible — reading. As I’ve mentioned in prior comments, I don’t think these comments are damning, but they are troubling. (FWIW, I wouldn’t have nominated any judge with S.’s politics or philosophy, but, as they say, elections have consequences ….)
Pithlord, however, identifies a point that is not frequently mentioned. This line is truly radical, and not at all PC: “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.” It’s an interesting and somewhat awkward formulation. Still, among the things S. accepts as, well, acceptable, is “that inherent physiological … differences [based on] our … national origins may and will make a difference in our judging[.]”
Steve Sailor may not put it exactly that way in his writings. But Sotomayor’s comments are certainly closer to Sailor’s comments regarding the impact of racial differences on, e.g., intelligence and temperment, than many of Sotomayor’s supporters might wish to accept. Certainly, they are closer to Sailor than I’d like to see in a judicial nominee.
(I again refer to Ta-Nehisi’s comments on this subject as most reflective of my views.)
I actually think that a good way to think about this is to ask: over what range of possible worlds does her claim 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” range?
Possibility 1: it ranges over all possible worlds, including those in which the US is a matriarchy dominated by Latinas. Even there, a wise Latina would do better. This would imho be offensive.
Possibility 2: it ranges over worlds that are more or like this one, specifically in that there has been oppression against both women and Latinos/Latinas, and both groups are seriously underrepresented in the judiciary. This would, imho, not be offensive. I think it’s borderline banal to say that it’s easier to appreciate what it’s like to be either discriminated against or a member of an underrepresented minority if you have been one:
“The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes.”
Etc. The toad knows this from experience; non-toads require empathy, which might or might not be forthcoming, and is in any case apt to miss the odd detail. And if her claim ranges only over worlds in which Latinas are underrepresented and historically discriminated against, I think that’s all she’s saying.
I don’t think it’s completely clear which she’s saying, but I think 2 is more plausible, given things like her references to “living that life”, experience, etc. — I mean, the advantage is supposed to come from the content of the wise Latina’s experience, which would not be remotely the same in my imaginary Latina-dominated US.
In any case, I think that people who find this offensive are implicitly hearing 1, and people who don’t are implicitly hearing 2.
“more or like” should be “more or less like”.
I guess what confirms it for me that it’s #2 is that it’s such a ridiculous (and offensive) argument if that’s really what she means.
To Pith’s point – she might be making general points about the value of diversity. But I’m focusing specifically on this line — the one where she says latinas make wiser decisions. considering the paragraphs surrounding it, i don’t really even see it as plausible to read her as saying they just make better judges.
publius: #1 didn’t so much as occur to me as a possibility until I really sat down and tried to figure out what all the fuss was about.
Von, the way I read it, the physiological differences went with “gender” and the cultural differences went with “national origin.” So maybe Larry Summers could find some support, but Steve Sailer would not.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences[…]”
“But Sotomayor’s comments are certainly closer to Sailor’s comments regarding the impact of racial differences on, e.g., intelligence and temperment [sic], than many of Sotomayor’s supporters might wish to accept.”
Cultural differences occur between judges from different cultural / ethnic backgrounds, which inform their experiences. And yes, there is an obvious physiological difference between certain judges. Brace yourselves: some have peepees and some don’t. Shockingly, both of these differences might have a bearing on how those judges perceive discrimination, without their brains literally being constructed differently. I mean, there are pictures on the internet that cover the physiological stuff, guys.
y’know, I’m a little tired of hearing people – even in this case people who I’m inclined to credit as sincere – hearing that “physiology” and getting the shivers.
Do you really think that she was talking about racial superiority, or even different racial aptitudes for different situations, a la Steve Sailer? And do you think that anyone on the left agrees with such an interpretation and yet wouldn’t be repulsed by the notion? Or do you think it might just be that she was considering how being a woman, or being a diabetic, might color a judge’s comprehension of relevant issues as they come before the bench?
Well, I may be wrong about this, but I think that there is a physiological difference between men and women.
If I am right about this ( humor me here:-)) I imagine that women experience the world differently than men and this different experience just may color their thinking on their thinking and decision-making on such matters as say, pregnancy and rape. I think that this is most likely what Sotomayor was referring to, and not any racist theories of Latina superiority ( of which I don’t think that there are any).
In any case, erecting a theory that Sotomayor is racist based on one line is a completely specious argument, and we should never lose sight of that.
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.
people, people, people. the bold parts of the sentence qualify the rest.
if A = B, then A + C > B – C
Let me know when Sotormayor starts a site equivalent to vdare.
What I find interesting is that a judge with a fairly conservative approach to the law is being ripped by conservatives and defended by liberals.
That is all one really needs to know about the society we are now in.
Cleek’s right. It has annoyed me from the beginning of this particular little merde-storm that the likes of Pat Buchanan hear “wise Latina” as just plain “Latina”. Had Sotomayor claimed that a “dumb Latina” would make better decisions than your typical white guy who thinks English muffins are ethnic food, then the Buchanans of the world might have a point.
The other thing that annoys me is the pathetic conflation of a group’s “diversity” with an individual group member’s ethnicity. A more-diverse Court is good. But you can’t get there from here if you don’t like nominees who are “ethnic”.
–TP
“wise Latina” is clearly playing on the previous phrase; and the rest of the speech, which continues after what hilzoy has highlighted, indicates that white male judges *can* educate themselves as to the experience of minorities, but that it’s a difficult and time-consuming task, so not many do, and that someone such as herself should take care to reflect upon her experiences intelligently. So her argument seems to reduce to “In cases concerning discrimination based on race and gender, some people who have been personally affected by such policies and who have taken the time to reflect wisely on those experiences with luck will come to better conclusions than those who have not had those experiences and who have not taken the time to educate themselves about the effect of the policies.”
Would that all our “racists” were so thoughtful!
I submit this as a case of Conservative psychological projection — the words “wise Latina” alone were taken to mean Sotomayor, “white male” means Conservative men, and thus the froth and hubbub about her bigotry and hatred.
Narcissicist provocateurs tend to assume others operate in the same manner.
Incidentally, this reminds me of a few experiences I’ve had with female friends and girlfriends. They often assume there is an indirect message behind a direct statement of mine; I have often assumed a seemingly direct question or statement to be intended indirectly. On occasion when I have realized this and commented that I mean exactly what I said with no hidden subtexts, THAT is assumed to have a hidden meaning as well. At which point I practically pray for a booming voice from above to announce, “IT IS TRUE, THIS MAN IS SPEAKING WITHOUT ANY OTHER INTENDED MESSAGES.” Hasn’t happened yet though. 🙂
Modification of above: I have often taken questions or statements at face value rather than ferreting out the subtle underlying meaning.
But you all knew what I meant.
publius: #1 didn’t so much as occur to me as a possibility until I really sat down and tried to figure out what all the fuss was about.
me too — i think i watched either the national news or the local news (i’m visiting family so the tv is on more), and the presentation of it as #1 freaked me out a little.
Publius, in that context and spoken aloud, it would never have occurred to me to assume she meant the statement more broadly. It makes sense as to discrimination, it makes much less sense otherwise. Thanks for the context, which I had not seen before.
MDS, it’s entirely possible that Sotomayor’s reference to physiological differences was limited to gender differences. People misspeak all the time.* But, at a minimum, it bears noting that this is not what she actually said, and that she didn’t limit physiological differences to gender differences.
Hilzoy and Publius, I certain agree with your views regarding world #2. But I don’t think that response answers the (admittedly, rather meek) criticism that I’ve lodged.
*My understanding is that these comments were prepared remarks, however.
I don’t agree that it is at all obvious she is limiting herself to just discrimination cases. And certainly not obvious enough that you can accuse people who report otherwise as “affirmatively misleading the public.”
She sets it in opposition to:
“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.”
That isn’t limited, so it isn’t clear that her opposition comment is either.
ok seb – do you take her to be saying that latinas are better judges than white men? do you really think a sitting appellate judge would say that?
it’s frankly hard for me to see how you all are reading it as even a semi-close call
Von, isn’t it possible she simply assumed her audience was astute enough to match the appropriate terms and to not think she meant that national origin somehow influenced physiology?
And Sebastian, she illustrates her counterargument with a historical reference to sex discrimination rulings. No disrespect, but you’re reaching here.
I think she is saying that white men have a limited view that is already well represented and that a latina woman would do better in most cases. Why wouldn’t she say that?
But again, I think this quote is mostly bleh. The “we make policy quote” would be much worse if it weren’t for the fact that most judges (note I don’t say liberal judges) almost certainly believe that, and think it is peachy.
Because she knows quite well there are situations when a white man would do better.
Or rule quite narrowly BECAUSE of it? Descriptive, not prescriptive.
My 12:08 comment was also in response to Blar.
Gromit, I don’t think it has anything to do with the astuteness of her audience …. perhaps you mean the sympathies of her audience (i.e., that they, like most ObWi’ers, will give her the most charitable view because they agree with her politically).
Like I said, I don’t think that this remark is disqualifying. But it seems as though that, at a minimum, it’s very poorly phrased. My hope is that when she’s questioned about this at the hearing she’ll simply say, hey, maybe I was a little unclear, what I really meant was X, rather than dig in and defend it as a completely clear and reasonable remark such that anyone who thinks something different must be “affirmatively misleading” the public.
“Or rule quite narrowly BECAUSE of it? Descriptive, not prescriptive.”
Have you seen the video? It is clearly a gaffe along the lines of “I know I’m not supposed to say this, the silly people won’t like it”.
Well, there are a lot of truths that are (seen as) better not spoken in public. That judges influence law and policy is imo independent of their philosophies. The mere fact that they apply something (ideally) abstract on concrete reality does it.
To use a very shaky analogy: Does a test driver (the judge of a new car) influence the design of cars? I think he does, although it’s not usually him doing the drawing. But his judgement will go back to the designers that will (if they trust the tester) lead to changes either in the design or the instruction manual (‘you better don’t do this or that with this vehicle’). Of course there are ‘activist’ testers with biased reviews too but a designer crying ‘how dare he insinuate that this design has these unintended hazards’ on a regular base would not be taken seriously for long (unless he is a large defense contractor).
As for Sotomayor’s gaffe, I think she had the choice to either add a boring clarification (that would still be interpreted as an ass-covering evasion) or to make a joke. the ‘gaffe’, I think, was to state the reality-that-is-not-supposed-to be.
MDS, it’s entirely possible that Sotomayor’s reference to physiological differences was limited to gender differences. People misspeak all the time.* But, at a minimum, it bears noting that this is not what she actually said, and that she didn’t limit physiological differences to gender differences.
Perhaps you could give a go at reading Sotomayor as charitably as you’re attempting to read McArdle on another thread.
Publius: Your main post is a good defense I think. I don’t agree with you, but it is a legitimate defense. You might want to get the administration on board though because they have been walking back the remark. They are going with the “misspoke” defense. They’re talking about context as well but the focus is on “misspoke”:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23102.html
“I’m sure she would have restated it,” President Barack Obama said in an interview with NBC News, referring to Sotomayor’s speech that was later reprinted in a law journal. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote what’s clear is she was simply saying that her life experiences will give information about the struggle, the hardships that people are going through, that will make her a good judge.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went a little further, saying, “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”
That seems to at least concede that they understand that the remark is problematic.
i agree the word choice was poor, but she didn’t say what impeccably-honest, but sadly-mistaken, men like Limbaugh, Buchanan, Gingrich and Hannity want her to have said.
“Of course there are ‘activist’ testers with biased reviews too but a designer crying ‘how dare he insinuate that this design has these unintended hazards’ on a regular base would not be taken seriously for long (unless he is a large defense contractor).”
He would be if test drivers got into the habit of blatantly rigging their test drives to favor the sorts of cars they liked. And some of them expressed the opinion that was just part of the job.
She’s quite precise, and these were prepared remarks.
She doesn’t *claim* that there are innate or cultural differences between the genders or among racial groups relevant to judging, but sdhe says she’s open to the possibility and doesn’t treact negatively to it. Fine with me, but controversial.
She does not limit herself to discrimination cases,but gives them as an example.
She says it is popssible for a judge with no common experience with a litigant to be fair, but more difficult.
She “hopes” Latina judges will do better.
These are carefully-phrased remarks.
I agree it is implausible that she thinks Latinas are a master race-gender of super-judges. She is saying that narrow range of experience on the bench is bad.
Perhaps you could give a go at reading Sotomayor as charitably as you’re attempting to read McArdle on another thread.
Huh? Sotomayor literally says that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge; yet, I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn’t really mean what she said.
By the way, I noted that McArdle is unclear on a number of points, and I agree with many of Hilzoy’s front-page arguments. My dispute was with a comment that Hilzoy made (and Eric seconded), which ascribed a view to McArdle that wasn’t in McArdle’s piece. I don’t know how that is giving McArdle the benefit of the doubt: If it’s not there, it’s not there.
By the way, I think that the right thing to do here is also the politically smart thing to do here. Sotomayor only gets derailed if she creates some sort of controversey at the hearing. There’s no way to offer a full-throated defense of these remarks without the risk of saying (or believing) something that’s much more controversial. The easiest path is for Sotomayor to say that she was unclear, and that all she meant was that we all bring a breadth of experience to our judging.
Sotomayor literally says that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge;
ffs. no. she. didn’t.
she clearly compared a Latina woman with a certain set of experiences to a white man who doesn’t have those experiences. it’s the experiences that make the difference, not the physiological differences.
Sotomayor literally says that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge; yet, I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn’t really mean what she said.
She’s talking about race and gender. In context, assuming that ‘physiological’ refers to racial difference (which would be nutty) rather than gender difference (which, you know, would be perfectly reasonable, given that the physiological differences associated with gender lead to a very distinct set of possible life experiences) seems unnecessarily uncharitable.
Sorry about that — the first thing I saw on the thread was von’s last comment, and I responded to it without looking to see if it had been responded to above. Obviously, many people have straightened von out about this already.
In any case, the ‘literally says’ is nonsense. In a vacuum, either interpretation of the statement, whether physiological differences were intended to relate to race, gender, or both, would be equally plausible. In context, interpreting it as referring to race is lunatic.
Huh? Sotomayor literally says that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge;
See, now, she doesn’t “literally” do this at all, von — you’re doing here EXACTLY what you’re accusing hilzoy of doing elsewhere: Ascribing a view that is not supported by a plain reading of the text. You yourself said, in the post I responded to, “[Sotomayor] didn’t limit physiological differences to gender differences.” Nor, per her quote, did she specifically ascribe physiological differences to racial differences. You are plainly and simply pulling that from your rectum.
Look, you’re an educated guy. Surely you’ve taken some writing courses in your life. Surely you’ve heard of “parallel construction.” But in case you haven’t, looking at Sotomayor’s quote — and removing the parenthetical phrase between the commas — gives us:
Now, clearly, gender and national origin do not arise from experience, so “experience” is not a referent for “gender and national origins.” So that leaves us two parallel phrases: “inherent physiological or cultural differences,” and “gender and national origins.” Mapping those two parallel phrases one-to-one is left as an exercise for the reader.
Bob Herbert, The Howls of a Fading Species, NYT:
But if the first-ever Latina appointed to SCOTUS should refer to herself as a “wise Latina”, at that point, suddenly, all of these white Republicans howl “RACIST!”
Why is anyone taking this kind of crap seriously?
Sotomayer is a conservative choice, typically Obama. The people who don’t like the idea of a Latina on the Supreme Court would be finding some reason or another to fulminate against her selection whatever she’d said. Whatever. Like the people who don’t like the idea of a black man as President were coming up with all sorts of stupid reasons why they weren’t going to vote for Obama, based on eff-all.
Like Lee Atwater said: explicit declarations of racism, these days, backfire. Instead, you use codewords. And they work for the intended audience.
“That seems to at least concede that they understand that the remark is problematic.”
Not really. What it does seem to concede is that the over-blown reaction to an innocuous phrase is problematic.
One of Obama’s biggest failings is a trust that people are basically reasonable. I do think he is finally realizing that isn’t true and making adjustments.
Lizardbreath, I don’t think that the context you’re referencing has much to do with the issue at hand. Indeed, for the purposes of the following response, I assume that Sotomayor is limiting all of her comments to discrimination cases (a plausible interpretation, but not the only plausible interpretation).
In response to Lizardbreath, Phil, and Cleek –
As an opener: (1) again, I don’t regard this statement as disqualifying and (2) I think that Sotomayor deserves the benefit of the doubt in any event.
That said, Sotomayor did literally say that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge. (Note the word “may” on my part; it was intentional in the first instance and it’s intentional here as well.) Here’s the passage:
Let’s proceed from the least awkward to the truly awkward.
First, it seems clear that Sotomayor believes that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” (The only part that’s unclear is how something “may and will” do something else, but that’s not material to this issue.) Incidentally, I agree with Sotomayor’s point from a descriptivist perspective. I disagree with Sotomayor to the extent that she is suggesting that such is a good thing.
Second, it’s clear that Sotomayor believes that the differences created by “gender and national origins” arise from “[e]xperience” or “inherent physiological … differences” or “inherent … cultural differences”.
Contra Phil, there’s no one-to-one tracking here. The sentence structure provides that any one of these three causes — “[e]xperience” or “inherent physiological … differences” or “inherent … cultural differences” — can be reflected in either gender or national origin. (I’ll assume that Sotomayor’s application of “inherent” to “cultural differences” is simply awkward phrasing – although, again, she literally indicated that cultral differences can be inherent.)
Contra Lizardbreath, there’s no context that says that “inherent physiological … differences” must be applied to gender and cannot be applied to national origin. Indeed, the paragraph immediately preceeding this one discounts the ability of white judges to provide correct decisions in discrimination cases (“I agree that this is significant [that the judges were white males] but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women.”) As I pointed out on other threads, this is a reductionist view that assumes a one-to-one correlation between race and experience. I agree with LB that this is probably not what Sotomayor meant, however.
Look, the bottom line is that Sotomayor gave a speech that contains some phrasing that is awkward, at best, in ways that are embarrassing. That doesn’t mean that Sotomayor is a bad person. Nor do I become Sean Hannity for pointing any of this out.
By the way, Phil, I don’t think that deep thoughts on parallel construction has much to offer the analysis here. Also:
I didn’t accuse Sotomayor of “specifically ascrib[ing] physiological differences to racial differences.” I wrote — now, for the third time — that Sotomayor literally stated that “that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge[.]” (Emphasis added in the restating.)
Contra Phil, there’s no one-to-one tracking here.
As part of my career, I edit other peoples’ writing, so I think I’ll take my word on this over yours, thanks.
I’ll assume that Sotomayor’s application of “inherent” to “cultural differences” is simply awkward phrasing
Luckily, she didn’t say that. She said “inherent physiological or cultural differences.” It may surprise you to discover that “inherent” can modify “physiological” in that sentence without modifying “cultural.” Again, in parallel construction, when you have a list of things — for example, “inherent physiological differences” and “cultural differences” — you can group them without having a single adjective modify them all.
This is basic grammar, von. Unless one is determined to be obtuse about it.
Sotomayor did literally say that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge.
The irrefutable argument by repeated assertion. First, this is a misuse of the word “literally”. For the above quoted statement to be true, Sotomayor would have had to have said “physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge.” which she did not. What you mean is that she said something other than “physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge,” which you believe to unambiguously have the same meaning as “physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge.” You are wrong about this — the structure of the sentence does not require that ‘physiological’ relate back to race rather than gender. It doesn’t absolutely rule it out, but it doesn’t require it, which means that you’re taking a grammatically ambiguous sentence, and interpreting it in a ridiculous fashion.
The context that makes that ridiculous, is that she’s talking about being Latina, and that she’s not an idiot. It would be racist and incorrect, but not actually incoherent, to believe that there were ‘physiological’ differences between people of predominately European descent, predominately African descent, and predominately Native American descent that had some effect on their judging. Given that being Latina provides no information whatsoever about whether one’s ancestry is predominately European, African, or Native American, or any mixture of the three or of any two of the three, believing in meaningful physiological differences between Latina and non-Latina judges requires either ignorance of what being Latina implies about one’s ancestry (unlikely, given that Judge Sotomayor is one), or a belief that there’s some physiological difference between Latinas and non-Latinas attributable to something other than the geographical origins of their ancestors.
If you have to postulate that Sotomayor holds beliefs that bizarre to support your reading of her statement, that’s pretty strong evidence that you’re way off base.
Von: First, it seems clear that Sotomayor believes that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
And if you and other right-wingers didn’t believe that was exactly true, why would you be making such a fuss about a Latina being appointed to the Supreme Court?
As part of my career, I edit other peoples’ writing, so I think I’ll take my word on this over yours, thanks.
Okaaaay ….
(Probability that a grammatical error will infect a declaration of one’s grammatical superiority = 1.)
First, this is a misuse of the word “literally”.
I know, but I typed it that way the first time and figured I’d stick with the ship.
You are wrong about this — the structure of the sentence does not require that ‘physiological’ relate back to race rather than gender. It doesn’t absolutely rule it out, but it doesn’t require it, which means that you’re taking a grammatically ambiguous sentence, and interpreting it in a ridiculous fashion.
Wait, isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? (Except for the “interpreting it in a ridiculous fashion” bit, of course.) Sotomayor’s statement allows that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge. May. Not will. Not always.
Given that being Latina provides no information whatsoever about whether one’s ancestry is predominately European, African, or Native American, or any mixture of the three or of any two of the three, believing in meaningful physiological differences between Latina and non-Latina judges requires either ignorance of what being Latina implies about one’s ancestry (unlikely, given that Judge Sotomayor is one), or a belief that there’s some physiological difference between Latinas and non-Latinas attributable to something other than the geographical origins of their ancestors.
That was actually part of my original point, on a prior thread, which was that the real problem with Sotomayor’s statement was that it was terribly reductionist — however construed. Latino/a does not imply a single culture, single background, single set of experiences, etc. Cuban immigrants in Florida are not Puerto Ricans in the Bronx are not Mexican-Americans in Laredo.
I agree with you that it is utterly idiotic to combine all Latinas in a single monolithic cultural group or background. But I’m not the one doing that. Sotomayor is.
As I said, this was a very awkward speech.
Wait, isn’t that exactly what I’m saying?
No. You’re claiming that Sotomayor unambiguously claimed that there were physiological differences between Latinas and ‘white’ people that may affect their judging. That’s a grammatically not-impossible but substantively ridiculous reading of her statement.
I agree with you that it is utterly idiotic to combine all Latinas in a single monolithic cultural group or background. But I’m not the one doing that. Sotomayor is.
You’ve completely missed my point. My point is that it would be absurd for anyone who knew what the word ‘Latina’ meant, in terms of ancestry, to believe that there were consistent physiological differences between Latinas and people of predominately European ancestry, given that plenty of Latinas are people of predominately European ancestry.
To interpret Sotomayor’s statement as you do, you have to attribute a belief to her either that Latino/a describes a group sharing a common geographical origin (i.e., European, African, or Native American, as opposed to the truth, which is that Latinos can belong to any of the above ethnicities or any mixture of them), or a belief that there are physiological differences between Latino/as and white people unrelated to their ancestry. Either one is ridiculous.
If someone says something that can be interpreted in a sane manner, but that it’s grammatically possible to interpret in a ridiculous manner, one conventionally goes for the sane interpretation.
As part of my career, I edit other peoples’ writing, so I think I’ll take my word on this over yours, thanks.
Okaaaay ….
(Probability that a grammatical error will infect a declaration of one’s grammatical superiority = 1.)
Yes, von, I’m a poor typist and don’t use a proofreader at ObWi. I guess that means I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Tell you what: You can gainsay me on matters of law, and I’ll gainsay you on matters of writing and language.
Sotomayor’s statement allows that physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge.
Except you’ve still yet to establish that “physiological differences” in the sentence in question refers to race rather than gender, which everyone aside from you (and conservatives who seem determined to smear Sotomayor as a racist) seems to be able to understand.
No von, you were saying that she said that there were physiological differences between races and that furthermore those differences may influence their judgement.
And saying you decided that you would stick with the ship is something I didn’t think I would read from you. You have frequently requested that people own up to their mistakes, but you won’t own up to yours. A simple “You’re right, I was wrong to say literally and what I meant was that my interpretation of what she said is” would have sufficed.
Your interpretation still is a stretch by most standards, but it is a somewhat legitimate interpretation.
No. You’re claiming that Sotomayor unambiguously claimed that there were physiological differences between Latinas and ‘white’ people that may affect their judging. That’s a grammatically not-impossible but substantively ridiculous reading of her statement.
I don’t think that Sotomayor unambigously said anything, Lizardbreath. I also don’t see the point in continuing this debate because I don’t see a disagreement between us on this point.
You’ve completely missed my point. My point is that it would be absurd for anyone who knew what the word ‘Latina’ meant, in terms of ancestry, to believe that there were consistent physiological differences between Latinas and people of predominately European ancestry, given that plenty of Latinas are people of predominately European ancestry.
No, I got your point. I just pointed out that it is equally “absurd for anyone who knew what the word ‘Latina’ meant, in terms of ancestry, to believe that there were consistent [experiential/cultural/etc.] differences between Latinas and people of predominately European ancestry, given that plenty of Latinas are people of predominately European ancestry.” As well as absurd to suggest that Latinas have some common set of experiences given the utter breadth of the term.
Phil, I was making a joke. I didn’t respond further not because of your typo, but because your additional comments don’t require an additional response. I said everything I needed to say in prior comments. (Heck, if I have less than 15 typos per comment, I’m happy.)
And saying you decided that you would stick with the ship is something I didn’t think I would read from you. You have frequently requested that people own up to their mistakes, but you won’t own up to yours. A simple “You’re right, I was wrong to say literally and what I meant was that my interpretation of what she said is” would have sufficed.
But I’m not backing off my point; only the misuse of the term literally.
von, thank you for agreeing with what I said, even if it was somewhat ambiguous. At least you are now saying that it is your interpretation of what she said as opposed to what she actually said.
And again, it is your interpretation, an understandable one but not necessarily accurate, that she suggested that all Latinas have a common set of experiences. Of course my interpretation is that she is not speaking of all Latinas having the sazme set of experiences, but that Latina women, although each of them may have different experiences from each other, still have different experiences, for the most part, from white males.
After all, she is specifically referring to white males that don’t have the same set of experiences than “a” Latina women, not that no white male would have approximately the same set of experiences. And she also specifically said that a white male could make a major effort to understand those experiences, just that she is not sure too many do.
After all, she is specifically referring to white males that don’t have the same set of experiences than “a” Latina women, not that no white male would have approximately the same set of experiences.
That proves far too much, John. “A” white male hasn’t had the same set of experiences as another white male. (And leave aside the fact that one can be both Latino and white.) But that wasn’t Sotomayor’s point. Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially described as Latina. I that’s not correct.
I don’t think that Sotomayor unambigously said anything, Lizardbreath.
Huh. In that case I don’t know what you meant by ‘literally’ at all. I mean, it was clear that it was a slip from the beginning, and what you meant was something along the lines of “she obviously or unambiguously meant that ‘physiological differences between people of different race may influence their judgment or fitness to be a judge'”. But if you didn’t mean that, I don’t understand your statements on that point in the slightest.
I just pointed out that it is equally “absurd for anyone who knew what the word ‘Latina’ meant, in terms of ancestry, to believe that there were consistent [experiential/cultural/etc.] differences between Latinas and people of predominately European ancestry, given that plenty of Latinas are people of predominately European ancestry.”
This is wrong. Regardless of the geographical origin of their ancestors, someone who identifies as Latino/a is overwhelmingly likely to have the social experience of being treated as non-white, or as only ambiguously white. That doesn’t mean that the experiences of a Puerto Rican woman living in the Bronx are precisely similar to those of a man of Mexican origin living in Texas, but they’re very likely to have at least some shared experiences that a white judge won’t share. Latino/a is a broad concept, but it’s a social, rather than biological concept — the idea that there are experiences likely to be common to Latinos and unfamiliar to ‘white’ people is not absurd at all, while the idea that there are ‘physiological’ commonalities among Latinos that distinguish them generally from ‘white’ people is absurd.
Von: “A” white male hasn’t had the same set of experiences as another white male.
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack:
The Male Privilege Checklist:
Just as an example.
Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially described as Latina. I [think] that’s not correct.
…just as you think, I’m sure, that there are no experiences that could be described as straight or cisgendered.
“‘A’ white male hasn’t had the same set of experiences as another white male.”
There are a considerable number of experiences that all people perceived as “white” share in this country, that those perceived otherwise do not share, and there are a considerable number of experiences that all people perceived as male share in this country that those perceived as female don’t share. Do you disagree?
Someone perceived as a Latina lacks, for the most part, these experiences. Need I elaborate?
“Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially described as Latina. I that’s not correct.”
There are a number of shared experiences Latinas have that white males don’t experience. Do I really need to elaborate on this? For instance, do you menstruate? Have you ever experienced being treated as a minority in America because of your accent? If so, how commonly have you experienced that? Have you ever had someone assume that you’re in a position because of affirmative action? Have you ever had someone assume you must be Catholic? Do you commonly use the women’s toilet? Have you ever been a member of a Latino organization?
Really, I could keep going on these for quite a long time. It’s not a complicated point.
Regardless of the geographical origin of their ancestors, someone who identifies as Latino/a is overwhelmingly likely to have the social experience of being treated as non-white, or as only ambiguously white. That doesn’t mean that the experiences of a Puerto Rican woman living in the Bronx are precisely similar to those of a man of Mexican origin living in Texas, but they’re very likely to have at least some shared experiences that a white judge won’t share.
To illustrate this point, refer to G. Gordon Liddy’s recent reference to Sotomayor’s association with La Raza, which — according to Liddy — “means, in illegal alien, ‘the race.'”
Sotomayor is from Puerto Rico which is, of course, American territory, but hey, as far as Liddy is apparently concerned, anyone who speaks Spanish is just a wetback.
“Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially described as Latina. I say that’s not correct.”
Yes, there are. Not by every single Latina everywhere at all times in the history of the world, but in modern America, generally speaking, there are many shared experiences. For example: discrimination. Such that – in a talk about DISCRIMINATION cases!!! – Sotomayor has a point.
As I explained in our last go round on this Von, just imagine a black man suggesting circa Brown v Board of Ed that a black judge might be able to pull on certain insights inherent in the “black experience” to reach an informed conclusion.
Would you then argue that there is no monolithic black experience in all respects and therefore the speaker’s point was invalid? Or would you understand that certain experiences shared widely by a certain group lends credence to the statement?
My statement was confusing, but it’s no different from my points throughout this thread. What Sotomayor “said” is clear, and it is as I have indicated. What Sotomayor “meant” by what she said is unclear. As Obama’s spokesman has claimed on her behalf, it’s entirely possible that she misspoke.
This is wrong. Regardless of the geographical origin of their ancestors, someone who identifies as Latino/a is overwhelmingly likely to have the social experience of being treated as non-white, or as only ambiguously white.
In many places for many folks who fit the category of Latino/a, sure. But even those experiences will differ, and differ in quite radical ways.
Again, my basic point is that John’s explanation for Sotomayor’s comment proves too much, because it’s applicable to two different white dudes. That wasn’t Sotomayor’s point, and, even if it were, it wouldn’t be a very useful observation.
Jes, you’ve missed my point.
Gary, you as well.
Phil, Libby’s an idiot.
Eric, I happen to think that this argument is much better made with respect to the black experience. I disagree that you can adopt a consistent view with respect to Latino/a — given how vague and broad the term is — but of course you can draw a similar line based on skin color and, in part, social and/or economic status.
No it is not clear, von, at least not in the way you would like it to be.
I am not even a fervent supporter of Sotomayor as I think she tends to lean too far to the right.
I know you would like to think it is clear, but, as many people have pointed out, what you think is clear is your interpretation of what she said, not what she actually said.
And that is why I mentioned above that it would be nice if you just said, “In my opinion, this is how I interpret what she said…” and acknowledged that an interpretation is all it is.
Why are you “using” quotation marks “pointlessly”?
No, we’re pointing out your claim is wrong, and as usual you’re denying it.
“Phil, Libby’s an idiot.”
Liddy.
“In many places for many folks who fit the category of Latino/a, sure. But even those experiences will differ, and differ in quite radical ways.”
Which still means that “white” males have a long list of common experiences that Latinas do not, and that Latinas have a long list of common experiences that “white” males do not. Dancing around the point doesn’t change it. This is elementary logic, von: that two sets of people have some similar traits/experiences doesn’t mean that each set doesn’t have some dissimilar experiences.
You wrote: “Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially [confidentally[ described as Latina. I [say] that’s not correct.”
But it is. There are such experiences. You admit this:
You can stop there.
No doubt you feel the same way about the Asian American experience.
May I ask what your experience and knowledge is of the Hispanic experience?
Jes, you’ve missed my point.
Have I? Your point, as I understood it, was that there’s no such thing as “the white male experience” or “the Latina experience”.
Which I refuted, with two links. You can try to dispute the content of the links – people do, you’ll find helpful advice about how to do it all over the place – but you cannot simply tell me I “missed your point” without explanation of what else you could possibly have meant by “‘A’ white male hasn’t had the same set of experiences as another white male.”
A four point response to my several critics, many of whom are not understanding what I’m writing (or are making assumptions regarding my views that are incorrect).
1. If we’re going to talk about discrimination and/or cultural experiences between groups, it’s useful to be precise.
2. Examples of terms that are not precise: Latino/a and Asian American. These terms both capture too many different cultures and do a poor job at identifying the salient experience(s).
3. White/black and white/nonwhite, on the other hand, are useful descriptors when we’re talking about common experiences.
4. As are more precise cultural descriptors, such as Cuban-American and Mexican-American (within the larger framework of “Latino”); and Japanese-American, Phillipino-American, or Indian-American (within the larger framework of “Asian-American”).
2. On the other hand
Von, you’re not getting any clearer. First you say: I don’t think that Sotomayor unambigously said anything, Lizardbreath.
Then you say: What Sotomayor “said” is clear, and it is as I have indicated.
So, it wasn’t unambiguous, but it was clear?
I agree with your first statement, that it was ambiguous whether ‘physiological’ referred to gender, race, or both, if you assume she’s an idiot who doesn’t know that Latino/as aren’t a group defined by the geographical origin of their ancestors. If you give her credit for not being an idiot, that resolves any ambiguity.
I don’t understand how you reconcile “I don’t think that Sotomayor unambigously said anything” with “What Sotomayor “said” is clear,” though.
“1. If we’re going to talk about discrimination and/or cultural experiences between groups, it’s useful to be precise.”
This is a vague generality, which doesn’t change the fact that there are experiences a Latino woman has that a “white” man doesn’t.
2. Examples of terms that are not precise: Latino/a and Asian American.”
This is a vague generality, which doesn’t change the fact that there are experiences a Latino woman has that a ‘white’ man doesn’t.
“3. White/black and white/nonwhite, on the other hand, are useful descriptors when we’re talking about common experiences.”
So are “Latino” and “women.”
There are, in fact, no “precise” terms that describe all members of groups such as “white people,” “black people,” “men,” “women,” “bloggers,” or “lawyers.” Yet we can still talk perfectly usefully about commonalities within these groups.
Von, you’re one of the most stubborn people I’ve ever seen in blogging in terms of a) never knowing when to quit digging when in a hole; or b) ever ever ever admitting getting something wrong, or withdrawing or modifying a claim. Instead, people are always, somehow, misunderstanding you. I suppose this is a useful trait in a lawyer, but it doesn’t make for the most productive of conversations.
Can we stick a fork in both the “out of context” and the “misspoke” lines now?
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/exclusive-sotomayor-made-same-wise-latina-comment-in-1990s-and-no-one-objected/
1994 speech:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
The line was delivered twice, 7 years apart. Only gender this time – but come on…
von: Examples of terms that are not precise: Latino/a and Asian American. These terms both capture too many different cultures and do a poor job at identifying the salient experience(s).
And you know this because you are yourself Latino/a, and are therefore in just as good a position as Sotomayor to argue that it’s not the right identifier?
Or you know this because you’re a white man, and that’s part of your experience as a white male: the belief that you have the right to decide on behalf of others how they should identify themselves.
(I realize that if you are, unexpectedly, outing yourself as Latino, I have just made a mortal fool of myself. I can deal with that.)
“Only gender this time – but come on…”
And you’re saying that as regards decisions that affect women, it’s not likely that women will often have better insights? What’s the controversy here, OCSteve?
I’m glad you’re telling me, an Asian American, about this.
I’m going to be — apparently — terribly controversial, and assert that as regards issues that affect the Jewish people, I’m more apt to be better able to make a better decision than non-Jews, that as regards issues that affect bloggers, as regards issues that affect bloggers, I’m more apt to be better able to make a better decision than non-bloggers, and that as regards issues that affect the short people, I’m more apt to be better able to make a better decision than tall people.
Shocking, isn’t it?
2. Examples of terms that are not precise: Latino/a and Asian American. These terms both capture too many different cultures and do a poor job at identifying the salient experience(s).
3. White/black and white/nonwhite, on the other hand, are useful descriptors when we’re talking about common experiences.
You’re really, really overthinking this, or not thinking it through enough, one or the other.
A black American whose ancestors were slaves in the Carolinas in the 19th century, and a black American whose grandparents came over from Uganda in the 1970s, are going to have had as diverse a set of experiences as the Mexican-American and Cuban-American people you posit.
Yet you agree that there’s probably a common set of experiences that our slave-descended black American and our Ugandan-descended black American would have shared that the descriptor “black” is useful enough to encompass both.
But somehow, “Latino/Latina” is not enough to encompass the set of common experiences — like, say, being called an illegal alien or a wetback or the like, or being stereotyped as hot-tempered, or as lazy, or as eating nothing but spicy foods — shared by our Mexican-American and our Cuban-American.
How can this possibly be the case?
I’m thinking that von is planning a career change into advertising demographics. Or trying to become the next Mark Penn.
Or is undereducated about the particulars of the culture and on social factors in general, and relies on mainstream knowledge (which isn’t up to the task).
I’m more apt to be better able to make a better decision than
*-ist !
The line was delivered twice, 7 years apart. Only gender this time
so i guess that kills the racism aspect. too bad!
maybe the GOP should play up that whole women angle.
I’m thinking that von is planning a career change into advertising demographics.
Haha. I can tell you that my company has a service which targets all Spanish-speaking audiences in the US for news distribution. The service is called “LatinoWire,” which we chose after consulting with our outside partner, the publisher of most of the leading Spanish-language newspapers in the US and the leading Spanish-language web portals. I’m sure von can explain to my CEO why there isn’t sufficient shared experience among those various audiences for the product to receive that name.
Or is undereducated about the particulars of the culture and on social factors in general, and relies on mainstream knowledge (which isn’t up to the task).
Or, possibly, has a fairly diverse group of friends who have strong opinions on these subjects.
A black American whose ancestors were slaves in the Carolinas in the 19th century, and a black American whose grandparents came over from Uganda in the 1970s, are going to have had as diverse a set of experiences as the Mexican-American and Cuban-American people you posit.
Yet you agree that there’s probably a common set of experiences that our slave-descended black American and our Ugandan-descended black American would have shared that the descriptor “black” is useful enough to encompass both.
But somehow, “Latino/Latina” is not enough to encompass the set of common experiences — like, say, being called an illegal alien or a wetback or the like, or being stereotyped as hot-tempered, or as lazy, or as eating nothing but spicy foods — shared by our Mexican-American and our Cuban-American.
How can this possibly be the case?
If you’ve noticed, I seldom use the term “African American,” but instead prefer the term “black.” That wasn’t always my preference. One of my closest friends’ family comes from an island in the Carribean. He would point out, quite pointedly, that it was a mistake to call him an African American — but that he definitely understood what it meant to be black in America.
but that he definitely understood what it meant to be black in America.
[i’m going to assume you’re white. feel free to correct me.]
do you understand it as well as he did ?
all other things being equal, would a black lawyer understand a little bit more about a lot of things than you do ? well, not about being white, obviously. but frankly, most of American pop culture is about being white, so i don’t suppose it’s that hard to figure out the basics. and as a SCOTUS member, the other 8 people could certainly fill-in any non-white member who had questions about any mysterious aspects of whiteness that might come up.
Right. And both a Mexican-American and a Cuban-American understand what it is to be Latino in America.
Another data point: Many (most?) people assume all the day workers and migrant workers they see are Mexicans, when in fact a huge proportion of them are Salvadoran and Guatemalan. Three different national origins, a shared Latino experience, and one that’s significant in the context of just what it is Sotomayor is talking about in the first place.
Put another way, I think that it’s vaguely insulting — and definitely ignorant — to lump the diverse experiences of folks from Japan, Korea,* China, India, and elsewhere in Asia into one common pool — “Asian-American” — and pretend that there is some kind of common experience. There really isn’t such a common experience, except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”. Otherwise, their experiences are diverse and individual.
Now, I accept that the majority view is to do exactly what I think is mistaken: pretend that there is, for instance, an “Asian-American” culture (or Latino/a culture). But I happen to think that the majority view, expressed by my critics on this blog, is erroneous, imprecise, and betrays a certain lack of imagination and, perhaps, lack of consideration. I would rather talk about a white/not white/black set of common experiences and then additionally talk about what it means to be, e.g., second generation Korean-American or Puerto Rican.
“Or, possibly, has a fairly diverse group of friends who have strong opinions on these subjects.”
You seem to be continuing to obviously be confusing the fact that groups with commonalities have differences with the notion that groups with commonalities have no commonalities.
*Some of this, again, is based on personal embarrassment, including the experience of erroneously calling someone whose family is from from Korea, Japanese. You do tend to get corrected on that one.
He would point out, quite pointedly, that it was a mistake to call him an African American — but that he definitely understood what it meant to be black in America.
I used to know a British guy working in New York who would respond to people who identified him as “African-American” with “Sorry, neither.” And this has what to do with your assertion that you, a white man, know better than a Latina that there is no such thing as “the Latina experience” or the “white male experience”?
Or, possibly, has a fairly diverse group of friends who have strong opinions on these subjects.
Doesn’t seem likely, given your absolute inability to figure out what’s wrong with your claiming you, a white man, know better than a Latina or an Asian-American what they ought to call themselves. Perhaps your friends are not diverse: perhaps they don’t have sufficiently strong opinions to stand up to you: perhaps they all like you too much to yell at you every time you say something incredibly stupid about race. I suspect the latter.
“Put another way, I think that it’s vaguely insulting — and definitely ignorant — to lump the diverse experiences of folks from Japan, Korea,* China, India, and elsewhere in Asia into one common pool — “Asian-American” — and pretend that there is some kind of common experience.”
Von, again, you’re confusing the fact that — as everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows — generalities like “Asian-American” and “Latino” gloss together a vareity of subsets of distinct nationalities and cultures (that you think this needs explaining is remarkable, as it suggests that you think this is news to anyone) with the fact that groupings like “Latino” and “Asian-American” in fact cover distinct sets of people with commonalities. Which is why, duh, there are innumerable Latino organizations, and Asian-American organizations, not just Salvadoran, Korean, Vietnamese, Guatemalan, Mexican, etc., organizations.
Similarly, each of these countries can be subdivided into a variety of regional and cultural groups, etc. Similarly, “Jewish” lumps together people of all “races,” and a huge number of cultures, not just Ashkenazi and Sephardic, but from individual nations, and sects, and regions, and villages, and so on. If someone were generalizing about Jews in a way that made that point relevant, I’d point it out, but I’m not going to object to being called a Jew, or to Jewish people being considered to be, on the whole, Jewish, just because there are all these subdivisions.
Just as all groups are subdivisible, and all individuals are groupable.
“Some of this, again, is based on personal embarrassment”
And you’re insanely over-correcting now. For crissake, how can you think everyone pointing out this stuff to you is wrong, and misunderstanding you?
“I would rather talk about a white/not white/black set of common experiences and then additionally talk about what it means to be, e.g., second generation Korean-American or Puerto Rican.”
How you think this is arguing with anything anyone has written, I can’t figure out.
Your claim, to remind you, was that “As well as absurd to suggest that Latinas have some common set of experiences given the utter breadth of the term.”
It’s not absurd; that there are numerous subgroups of “Latinos,”
and “women” doesn’t mean that the concept of “Latinos” or “women” don’t exist. This isn’t complicated. You seem to clearly have your past conversation where your point was relevant confused with this conversation.
You further asserted that “Sotomayor claims that there are experiences that could be confidentially [confidentally] described as Latina.”
And, woo-hoo, there are.
This is not a claim that all Latino people and all women are alike and have no sub-groupings.
Moreover, you’re lecturing to readers who include Asian-Americans and Latinos and women that it’s wrong for them to ever refer to themselves with these terms.
You really might want to stop and think about that.
“Some of this, again, is based on personal embarrassment, including the experience of erroneously calling someone whose family is from from Korea, Japanese.”
There’s a single word for what you’re doing here, by the way: “projection.”
I used to know a British guy working in New York who would respond to people who identified him as “African-American” with “Sorry, neither.” And this has what to do with your assertion that you, a white man, know better than a Latina that there is no such thing as “the Latina experience” or the “white male experience”?
It speaks to the diversity of human experience, such that reducing someone to, e.g., “African-American” or “Latina,” likely reduces her too far.
Now, an appropriate comeback is: fine, but isn’t it equally reductionist — perhaps moreso — to reduce folks to their skin color. And I would absolutely agree with that, but note only that skin color is the basis for how one has been treated in the US. Tiger Woods is black. President Obama is black. Your friend is black. Sotomayor is brown. Those simple facts, more than anything, has defined their experience with racism because that is the first thing that other folks notice. Racism is, in many cases, literally skin deep.
I’m not trying to speak for anyone; I’m not trying to speak to any one person’s experience save my own. I do think, however, that terms like Latina and Asian American create a kind of false understanding. To the extent that they reflect skin coloration or visible characteristics, they’re useful for describing a set of experiences. But, at least in my hard-won experience, you tread on truly dangerous ground when you expect that they describe more.
Put another way, I think that it’s vaguely insulting — and definitely ignorant — to lump the diverse experiences of folks from Japan, Korea,* China, India, and elsewhere in Asia into one common pool — “Asian-American” — and pretend that there is some kind of common experience. There really isn’t such a common experience, except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”. Otherwise, their experiences are diverse and individual.
I bow to your superior understanding.
I only taught Asian American studies for several years at a major public university.
Would you care for another shovel.
I’m not trying to speak for anyone; I’m not trying to speak to any one person’s experience save my own.
You are not doing a very good job of this.
von: “Put another way, I think that it’s vaguely insulting — and definitely ignorant — to lump the diverse experiences of folks from Japan, Korea,* China, India, and elsewhere in Asia into one common pool — “Asian-American” — and pretend that there is some kind of common experience. There really isn’t such a common experience, except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”. Otherwise, their experiences are diverse and individual.”
The “except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”.” part is key, and it is what everyone is insisting on (though I, at least, would omit “as not white” — people can be discriminated against as Asian-American, Latino, whatever.)
The entire point is that when there are people who discriminate against a large chunk of people, regardless of the many differences in those people’s backgrounds and experience, those people come to have one common set of shared experiences: namely, the experience of being discriminated against in that way.
Thus, the ignorance of Liddy and people like him ensures that Sonia Sotomayor will, as I will not, have the experience of being mistaken for an illegal alien because of her surname and ethnicity. His view of Latinos/Latinas determines how he treats them, and if his view lumps them all together, however wrongly, then they will tend to have that, and its results, in common.
Gary: And you’re saying that as regards decisions that affect women, it’s not likely that women will often have better insights? What’s the controversy here
I’m saying give up on the “context” and “misspoke” defense. She said almost identical things, in prepared remarks, 7 years apart. That is no coincidence. That is a mindset.
No problem if you like her – she’ll still be confirmed. My complaint is the relative treatment.
In terms of the requisite “neener neener you did it too” – an interesting comparison might be with how Democrats treated Charles Pickering:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/02/its_not_fair_to_casually_call_people_racist_96778.html
Then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Judge Pickering had displayed an “insensitivity to civil rights, to equal rights, especially to minorities. … This (nomination) lays bare the administration’s real position on civil rights.” Leading liberal newspapers tolled the bell with headlines like “Extremist Judge Unfit to Sit on Appeals Court” in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and “Say No to This Throwback” in the Los Angeles Times.
The Democrats succeeded in torpedoing Pickering’s nomination — not to mention assassinating his character. More than “insensitive,” he was called a crypto racist with a “segregationist past” (Paul Krugman). When President Bush offered Judge Pickering a recess appointment to avoid a Senate filibuster, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., breathed fire: “Here we are, on the weekend before a national holiday when we celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday, and George W. Bush celebrates it by appointing Charles Pickering, a known forceful advocate for a cross-burner in America, to the federal court of the United States.”
At present we have the usual (fully predictable) bomb-throwers. Back then the leadership of the Democratic Party as well as supporting pundits smeared Pickering with allegations of a “segregationist past” (he was a Southern Democrat in the early 60’s) and by taking one judicial ruling completely out of context.
Today, while a couple of pundits are out of line, Republican leaders are treating Sotomayor with kid gloves and there is little doubt from any corner that she will be confirmed. Not only did the Pickering smear work to block the appointment but eventually he left the federal bench entirely.
Here at ObWi:
http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fobsidianwings.blogs.com%2F+%22Charles+Pickering%22&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web
Katherine made a (rather half-hearted IMO) defense of the smear. Seb and others got the better of the argument in comments IMO. In other threads where Pickering came up Seb and others again had the stronger points.
I’ve never said she should not be confirmed. My complaint has been about differential treatment. I don’t even have to bring up Bork and Thomas…
I bow to your superior understanding.
I only taught Asian American studies for several years at a major public university.
Would you care for another shovel.
Sure. Is there, in your view, a common experience in the US as an “Asian American” that is not linked to skin color? In other words, are their commonalities in culture, language, and experience that stretch beyond a reaction — positive, negative, whatever — based on what’s apparent in the first nanosecond?
I’m not saying that I have superior knowledge, by the way. Only that I think that some of these terms are obscuring more than illuminating. Do you disagree? Agree? Why?
That’s true, but there’s more to life than what bigots think of you, or even experiences of discrimination. This is a woman whose been a corporate litigator/federal judge for decades. Is racial discrimination really the most central part of her experience?
von: It speaks to the diversity of human experience, such that reducing someone to, e.g., “African-American” or “Latina,” likely reduces her too far.
But referring to your friend from the Caribbean as “black” doesn’t reduce him too far?
If Sotomayor made a point of saying “I don’t think of myself as Latina: I think of myself as Puerto Rican”, you’d have a point about not referring to her as “Latina”.
But that isn’t the case. What you are doing here is telling a Latina she shouldn’t call herself Latina because in your view that’s not precise enough and it “reduces her”. You have no bloody right to do that to her. Or anyone. It would be like your telling your black friend that he’s got to accept being identified by you as African-American because as far as you’re concerned, that’s what he is, never mind what he says he wants to be called.
OCSteve: I’m saying give up on the “context” and “misspoke” defense. She said almost identical things, in prepared remarks, 7 years apart. That is no coincidence. That is a mindset.
Yes, she thinks of herself as a wise woman, as a wise Latina. And from your comments, your reaction is evidently that this self-description is uppity – how dare she have the “mindset” that thinks of herself as wise?
Sure. Is there, in your view, a common experience in the US as an “Asian American” that is not linked to skin color? In other words, are their commonalities in culture, language, and experience that stretch beyond a reaction — positive, negative, whatever — based on what’s apparent in the first nanosecond?
1) Common immigrant experience. That’s shared, of course, with Eastern Europeans, of course, but it’s a big shaper of experience.
2) Because of the common immigrant experience, they often settle in the geographic area of the same cities. You’ll see Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc. in common, contiguous areas.
3) Often in the same areas, they’ll be in similar industries (usually labor intensive things like hair care, groceries and restaurants).
4) Shared cultural landmarks are in the same area (while cuisine are not the same, supplies for cuisine are often ordered by the same stories), space for meeting areas are often in the same place, etc.
5) Internally, there’s recognition of commonalities (the “would you want your sister to marry one” if I’m being a smart ass, the flock of friends, particularly among the second generation, if I’m not being a smartass–that group of friends is pan-Asian).
6) Once you do get a second and later generation, of course, the dynamics change considerably, as there is a common language among the differnent groups as well as the common experiences of discrimination.
7) With that 2nd generation, you find considerable inter-Asian marriage (and if you look at those marriages, look at the marriage parties–very pan Asian).
8) Politically speaking, there are over-arching social institutions and politicians that ALL Asian groups go to (there is, of course, political power in banding togther) for social help such as day care, mental health counseling, employment counseling, etc.
So, you have shared geography, shared industries, shared friends, shared associations and cultural landmarks and shared grandchildren. Sounds like a community to me. (Though it’s an overall encompassing community; Korean American communities are part of the Asian American community).
Gary, I appreciate your views. You may even be correct. Additionally, I don’t intend to instruct anyone regarding how he or she may want to refer to him or herself. I apologize to the extent that I implied as much.
What I do reject, however, is that the term “Latina” is a useful term in describing a set of experiences, such that one person could speak to — and purport to represent — the Latina experience. I don’t think that you have to be Latina to realize that such is somewhat arrogant, and also plays into the very kinds of reductionist fantasies that we should be trying to eliminate. (I am reminded of Ta-Nehisi’s joke about Billy Dee Williams being the official black spokesperson …. the same kind of overreaching applies here as well, IMHO.)
What I do reject, however, is that the term “Latina” is a useful term in describing a set of experiences, such that one person could speak to — and purport to represent — the Latina experience. I don’t think that you have to be Latina to realize that such is somewhat arrogant,
Boy, if she’d said that she was capable of speaking for all Latinas on any issue, that would be reductive and arrogant. Saying that she shares the experiences common to Latinas, on the other hand, and that her judging is usefully informed by that, doesn’t seem arrogant at all to me.
Anyway, god forbid a judge should be arrogant. I know humility is usually an important part of Senate confirmation.
Jes wrote: “And this has what to do with your assertion that you, a white man, know better than a Latina that there is no such thing as ‘the Latina experience’ or the ‘white male experience’?”
I just have to say, von, that you wrote a bunch of words in your response to this, and I can’t for the life of me see how any of them answer Jes’ question.
At this point you’re just endlessly repeating variants of the same banal point — which no member of a minority needs to be told — that beneath general groupings are subgroupings, and — something that would be a useful lesson for third-graders everywhere — referring to, or thinking of, people as only members of the general groupings would be to miss the fact that there are distinct subgroupings, and that everyone is an individual.
That this banality doesn’t support your kooky claims that it’s “absurd to suggest that Latinas have some common set of experiences” is, at this point, something I feel deeply embarrassed, on your behalf, to read.
“I’m not trying to speak for anyone; I’m not trying to speak to any one person’s experience save my own.”
But the only experience of your own that you relate here is that: a) you have a friend whose comes from an island in the Carribean, and that he would point out, quite pointedly, that it was a mistake to call him an African American; and b) that you once “called someone whose family is from from Korea, Japanese.”
Everything else you’re doing is lecturing on how people who are members of groups you’re not a member of should be spoken of.
“I do think, however, that terms like Latina and Asian American create a kind of false understanding.”
It does passeth all understanding that Asian-Americans and Latino Americans have gotten this all wrong. How do you explain this?
In case the URLs get stripped:
http://www.asianamerican.net/organizations.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=1wL&num=50&q=%22latino+studies%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10
Respectfully, wtf?
Really, just how the heck do you explain this?
“But, at least in my hard-won experience, you tread on truly dangerous ground when you expect that they describe more.”
Von, this is sensible for you, a majority-American, to keep in mind, but it’s beyond bizarre that you think it’s appropriate to lecture minorities on how they shouldn’t refer to themselves.
(Specifically, that Sotomayor is “absurd” to say that her experience as a Latino is meaningful.)
For goshsakes, man, stop and think before reeling this projection out on a loop.
Speaking of reductive….
Being an important facet of her experience doesn’t mean the only experience.
Well, I’m thinking I should open up a shovel shop around here.
Crap, Typepad just ate my long post and I have two little kids to try (try!) to put to bed. Briefly, (1) I thank gwangung for his comment, but wonder how far does it goes. Aren’t almost all of those characteristic shared, for a time, by all immigrants (Irish, Italians, Jews, Russians, etc.)? And if Asian American has specific relevance, is it only with regard to certain groups of Korean, Japanese, and Chinese folks who all roughly started assimilating at the same time? Is it typical in your experience to mentally fit someone from Malaysian into that same category?
2. I find little to disagree with in Hilzoy’s comment at 7:54. Except this: Liddy tends to reinforce my view that this is a skin color issue and that framing this as a Latina issue obscures the issue. Do we think that Liddy would be more accepting of someone from, say, India with views similar to Sotomayor’s?
von: What I do reject, however, is that the term “Latina” is a useful term in describing a set of experiences, such that one person could speak to — and purport to represent — the Latina experience. I don’t think that you have to be Latina to realize that such is somewhat arrogant
Yes, I agree – your rejection of the self-identication of Latin Americans as to how they choose to describe themselves is “somewhat arrogant”, and no, I don’t have to be Latina to realize that.
Oh, you weren’t referring to your arrogant, rude behavior in instructing members of minority groups how they should refer to themselves? You meant that Sonia Sotomayor is “arrogant” to claim that she is a Latina and that her experience as Latina informs her judgement?
Wow. I’ve rarely seen a purer example of privilege expressed without the least understanding of how unapologetically rude you are being.
(You didn’t “imply” that you thought Sotomayor ought not to refer to herself as Latina: you stated it outright.)
OCSteve: “I’m saying give up on the “context” and “misspoke” defense. She said almost identical things, in prepared remarks, 7 years apart. That is no coincidence. That is a mindset.”
And you’re saying that as regards decisions that affect women, it’s not likely that women will often have better insights? What’s the controversy here?
“Gary, I appreciate your views. You may even be correct. Additionally, I don’t intend to instruct anyone regarding how he or she may want to refer to him or herself. I apologize to the extent that I implied as much.”
My previous comments crossed in passage with this. Well-done, Von. I’ll lay off you now. 🙂
Well, there’s the intermarriage and association part…kinda a big thing, wouldn’t you say? (not to mention the common social support structure).
And as far as Maylay and other groups are concerned, well one factor to consider is that there’s been Chinese diasporia and intermarriage throughout Southeast Asian and Pacific Islands, so there’s mixtures there. The pan Asian groups are highly welcoming of groups such as Guamanian, Hmong, etc., and with small numbers, these groups ally themselves with the pan-Asian groups readily. As groups get larger, there’s more reliance within the group, but the connection with pan-Asian groups don’t disappear (and neither do the informal associations). And with the next generation, of course, the difference seem much less important.
Boy, if she’d said that she was capable of speaking for all Latinas on any issue, that would be reductive and arrogant. Saying that she shares the experiences common to Latinas, on the other hand, and that her judging is usefully informed by that, doesn’t seem arrogant at all to me.
I’m not lodging the strong criticism at Sotomayor, although I do think that the phrase “wise Latina” is reductionist.
Anyway, god forbid a judge should be arrogant. I know humility is usually an important part of Senate confirmation.
As I mentioned, I don’t think Sotomayer’s comments are disqualifying.
Gary, I don’t think that you are actually arguing with me anymore.
I am making the (rather banal) point you identify regarding viewing cultures with nuance and treating individuals as individuals. (I disagree that it’s a point that everyone agrees with or already knows, and am quite surprised that you would argue otherwise.)
I’m making some additional points regarding the lack of usefulness of “Latina” when describing a common set of experiences vis-a-vis discrimination. But I’m out of time on that one.
As for projecting: Always possible, but seems unlikely here.
von, just where did Sotomayor say that there is “the Latina experience”, implying that every Latina has the same experience? The fact is she didn’t.
OCSteve, I already have said that the “mispoke” defense is reidiculous. However, the “context” situation remains the same. Both statements can seem one way taken by themselves, but context does matter. The problem is that context is not being given, and you know it.
You are also smart enough to realize that there is nothing wrong or arrogant or racist or sexist about either statement.
(You didn’t “imply” that you thought Sotomayor ought not to refer to herself as Latina: you stated it outright.)
WTF? I said that Sotomayor’s wise Latina comment — which was a generalization — was reductionist and unhelpful. I don’t think anyone interpreted that comment as talking only about Sotomayor.
Gwangung, please do (open a shovel shop). Digging, I’ve found, is the only way to reach the other side. Although, among my many sins, I don’t think projection is amng the candidates here. Now, off to put little kids to bed.
Sorry for the typos in the above series of posts.
as regards issues that affect the short people, I’m more apt to be better able to make a better decision than tall people.
Shocking, isn’t it?
Not shocking, Gary, simply wrong.
Fortunately for you, you have tall friends (such as myself) who understand your situation better than you yourself do, and will happily make decisions on your behalf.
You may not appreciate my position, but I’m sure Von does.
Unless, of course, he is short.
;}
Von: WTF?
June 03, 2009 at 01:48 PM; June 03, 2009 at 04:48 PM; June 03, 2009 at 05:43 PM;June 03, 2009 at 07:12 PM; and June 03, 2009 at 07:46 PM.
I’d post links, but there’s too many, Typepad would eat my comment.
In each comment, you argued that Sotomayor should not be using the word “Latina” to identify herself.
I don’t think anyone interpreted that comment as talking only about Sotomayor.
No, but I don’t see why being insulting to more than one person at a time makes your comments any better.
Fortunately for you, you have tall friends (such as myself) who understand your situation better than you yourself do, and will happily make decisions on your behalf.
You may not appreciate my position, but I’m sure Von does.
Actually, Dr. Ngo, I agree with you and Gary. A tall person surely cannot appreciate a short person’s “situation” as well as a short person. But a tall person should be able to question whether a short person’s generalization about all short people is accurate. A tall person should also be able to ask whether the term “short people” is really a helpful distinction, given that “short” is a relative term and views of what constitutes short (or tall, for that matter!) vary.
That’s the issue raised by Sotomayor’s remark. I don’t dispute that Sotomayor has faced discrimination, and continues to face discrimination. I don’t dispute that Sotomayor’s experiences are likely to inform her judging, and perhaps in helpful ways. I don’t think these comments are disqualifying. But I strongly question whether contrasting a generic “wise Latina” with a generic “wise white man” is helpful to any extent* ….. except, perhaps, to generate a 100+ comment thread. The breadth of the “Latina” and “white” experiences preclude such a comparison.**
p.s. to Jes, I’ll let my comments stand as they are. To the extent that they could be interpreted in the manner that you propose — and I don’t think that they can — I’ve expressly rejected that interpretation.
*Although I take Gwangung’s points regarding the term Asian American, I would raise a similar objection to a statement contrasting a generic Asian American experience to a generic white experience.
**I argue above that it is marginally more useful to talk about black/not-white/white experiences, although there are some problems with that discussion as well.
Von: But a tall person should be able to question whether a short person’s generalization about all short people is accurate.
Wow, that’s random. Where did this come from?
A tall person should also be able to ask whether the term “short people” is really a helpful distinction, given that “short” is a relative term and views of what constitutes short (or tall, for that matter!) vary.
The average height for a white man in America is 69.7 inches cite
You could spend a lot of time demanding that people who say they’re short people ought to justify their use of that term, and whether it’s helpful to refer to some people as short people and some people as tall people.
Or, if you’re of average height or taller, you could just accept that you have no real idea what it’s like to be an adult who is five foot four inches tall, or shorter, and for you to waste the time of people who do have that experience demanding that they justify themselves to you, is pretty damn irritating to them, and rude.
I’ll let my comments stand as they are. To the extent that they could be interpreted in the manner that you propose — and I don’t think that they can — I’ve expressly rejected that interpretation.
Except that you repeat that interpretation just above your comment to me: “But I strongly question whether contrasting a generic “wise Latina” with a generic “wise white man” is helpful to any extent* ….. except, perhaps, to generate a 100+ comment thread. The breadth of the “Latina” and “white” experiences preclude such a comparison.”
You are still challenging Sotomayor’s identifying herself as Latina. As a white man, you think you know better than she does whether she can say that there is a commonality of experience that Latinas share. And somehow, you don’t seem to see that instructing someone from a minority group of which you are not a member in how they ought to identify themselves, is just bloody rude.
“There really isn’t such a common experience, except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”. Otherwise, their experiences are diverse and individual.”
Exactly!!!!!
In the context of discrimination, Asian Americans have a common experience – despite the underlying differences.
The slurs are the same – and don’t differentiate. The stereotypes: ditto!!!
So for a Latina, anti-Latina discrimination is a common experience.
Which was Sotomayor’s point. Not that Latinas/os are monolithic and alike in all respects and always were forever and anon, but rather that being Latina in America means that you most likely have encountered anti-Latina discrimination. And this would give a certain level of insight.
And meanwhile, what’s with all Sotomayor’s going on about ‘wise’ this and that? Given the foolish minority in the US*, where is someone standing up for their point of view to be represented on the SCOTUS?
* Or possibly majority – I couldn’t possibly comment.
“Given the foolish minority in the US*, where is someone standing up for their point of view to be represented on the SCOTUS?”
1970:
Given the foolish minority in the US*, where is someone standing up for their point of view to be represented on the SCOTUS?
Isn’t that what they’ve got Clarence Thomas for? *snerk*
Samuel R. Delany says (in, I think, one or other of his Silent Interviews) that when he has been challenged for not being a sufficiently “black” writer, for either his writing or his experience not being sufficiently “black” to satisfy the critic that he really did have “black experience” and that his writing was informed by his experience as a black man… invariably came from white critics.
To which his response was pithy, but banned by the posting rules.
(Delany is – as I can testify from personal experience, and as he himself has said – sufficiently light-skinned to “pass” if he wanted to*: both his parents had emphasised to him, he recalls in his autobiography, that “passing” was something verboten.
*I was at a science-fiction convention, a few years ago, at which Delany was a guest: he was white-haired and had a beautiful white beard that covered a lot of his face. But it was surprising when, in a panel where we were discussing multiple discrimination, a gay man** said in surprise “Delany’s black?” and added hastily “The beard! It’s the beard!”
Someone else said “We’ve found Delany’s secret identity… he’s really Santa Claus.”)
(**Relevant: this guy had read Stars in my Pockets Like Grains of Sand, and only that, as far as I could tell/can remember. Had tried the Neveryon series, but hadn’t got very far into it. Mad Man had not yet been published.)
An example of Latina experience that Von claims he knows can’t exist: If a white man admitted that he hadn’t read a children’s classic until he was in his early twenties, he would not be mocked as an intellectual lightweight.
(Well… unless he actually was.)
Jes, I’m well past the point of indulging your myopia on this one. I’m not disputing anyone’s personal experience. I’m not telling anyone to call themselves (not call themselves) by any label. Label away! But that doesn’t make every label useful in every circumstance.
“There really isn’t such a common experience, except in that each group has been separately discriminated against by the majority culture as “not white”. Otherwise, their experiences are diverse and individual.”
Isn’t that exactly what I have been saying? That is, the common experience that creates these labels is the experience of discrimination based on their being not “white” — what you’re not rather than what you are (or what your cultural, economic, and social background is).
But von, you can’t wish away those experiences just because of how they create a label in the negative.
Latinas have, in fact, been discriminated against in ways that lead to a common experience – generally speaking.
A Latina woman recognizing this, and then commenting on how she hopes this would give a wise Latina woman insight on these matters over a white male, should be less controversial than it is being made out to be.
That is, the common experience that creates these labels is the experience of discrimination based on their being not “white” — what you’re not rather than what you are (or what your cultural, economic, and social background is).
This is also wrong. An Asian man, for example, is going to have a very different experience of racial discrimination than a black man. It’s not solely about being stereotyped as non-white, but also about being perceived specifically as Asian, or black, or Latino/a.
I have to ask this again: Is Sotomayor not Latina? If she is, the discussion should be over. If you can say she is Latina, it must mean something, unless “Latina” a meaningless word. Is it? Does Latin American culture not exist? Has there never been discrimination based on one’s being Latin American in the United States? These are very basic things, and all the rhetorical angels dancing on the heads of verbal pins do not make them disappear. You can make simple things out to be as complicated as you like while sitting at your keyboard, but it doesn’t actually make them complicated in this thing called “The World.” Are the words “Latina” and “white” so controversial and obscure that they cannot be used? Does any of this matter AT ALL? If you object to the idea that a Latina might understand certain things better than a white male, that’s one thing. But to object simply to the use of the words “Latina” and “white” is just absurd.
Everyone should go back and read the speech. Sotomayor is aware of the artificiality of the “Latino/a” label. Sotomayor specifically rejects the interpretation that what makes people Latino/a is a common experience of oppression or discrimination. And she also refers to cases outside the discrimination context — pointing to a finding that women and men decide search and seizure cases differently.
Remarkably, she claims that gender and race make a difference in “most” cases, which presumably includes bankruptcy cases, decisions about the extent of document disclosure under the federal rules and so on. The data don’t back her up on that.
From the speech:
In context, it *may* be that she is saying the obstacles to achieving success are discrimination, although that is a questionable assumption she does not argue for.
She’s an identity politician, but she’s not a guilty white liberal who thinks that the most important thing about a brown person’s life is what whites think about you.
“Sotomayor specifically rejects the interpretation that what makes people Latino/a is a common experience of oppression or discrimination. ”
As do I. But I would never say that Latinas do not, in general, share a common experience of facing discrimination in America.
“She’s an identity politician, but she’s not a guilty white liberal who thinks that the most important thing about a brown person’s life is what whites think about you.”
That’s an absurd position, and one that I have not seen expressed on this comment thread. Unless, if you think it has, you have examples to cite?
If not, it is a strange thing to say.
I do recommend reading the speech over again.
Admittedly, Sotomayor acknowledges the exact criticisms that I’m lodging against the term “Latina”, although she still argues for a generic Latina identity. The interesting thing, however, is that she is not arguing for a Latina identity based on common experience. She rejects the interpretation that Latina is defined, in significant part, by a common set of experiences (including discrimination). Rather, Sotomayor asserts that one becomes Latina by, e.g., choice: “I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life.” (I had to look up the original to assure myself that Pithlord wasn’t taking that line out of context, and he isn’t.)
Pithlord’s right: That’s a position that is reflected in very few (no?) of the comments on this blog — my prior comments included.
Viewing that comment through the lens of the extended argument here, I am less sure about what Sotomayor means by the wise Latina comment. I’m also less sure that Sotomayor knows what she means by the comment. At every level, this speech comes across as a bit of a muddle.
Maybe that’s a good thing.
“She rejects the interpretation that Latina is defined, in significant part, by a common set of experiences (including discrimination). Rather, Sotomayor asserts that one becomes Latina by, e.g., choice”
She also acknowledges that an academic could define Latina/o by way of cultural similarites, historical precedence and other factors – including experiences! Regardless: it’s not that experiences define the group, it’s that they are encountered by the group.
I wouldn’t say that blacks in America are “defined by discrimination.” However, nor would I say that blacks in America do not share a common experience of discrimination. Further, I would agree that someone is not considered black because of their encounters with discrimination.
If you think of it that way, Sotomayor’s speech is less muddled in that she kind of traverses those aspects that aren’t necessarily contradictory.
She is (in a broad sense) a politician. She wants a bigger coalition than Newyorkricans.
Viewing that comment through the lens of the extended argument here, I am less sure about what Sotomayor means by the wise Latina comment. I’m also less sure that Sotomayor knows what she means by the comment. At every level, this speech comes across as a bit of a muddle.
Momentarily, I think Von has achieved the beginning of wisdom – to understand he’s ignorant; and then Von moves right along to rubbish Sotomayor’s understanding, because obviously, since he asserts he knows better than a Latina how she should identify herself, if he doesn’t understand what she’s saying about her identity, it must be because she doesn’t understand it.
Want another shovel, since you seem to want to go on digging?
I wonder if “experience” really is a good way to try to figure out discrimination.
The paradigmatic case in post-Civil Rights Act America is someone not getting a job or promotion in ambiguous circumstances. The way to show that there was discrimination is to circulate identical resumes with an Anglo, a stereotypically black and a Spanish name, and see what happens.
If you can show that there is a statistically significant difference in response, there’s discrimination. It doesn’t matter what’s in the consciousness of the hirer. On the other hand, if you can’t, there isn’t, and it doesn’t matter what the perception of the people seeking the jobs might be.
Sure Pithy, but when you encounter cases such as the Ledbetter case, my guess is being a woman might matter in terms of understanding the full impact of pay discrimination (which was not disputed to exist, but rather was deemed barred by a strained interpretation of the statute of limitations starting point).
At least, it might make one less prone to stretch for those strained interpretations.
Eric,
There’s some evidence that female judges are more likely to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, but the effect isn’t large.
The problem that came up in the Ledbetter case comes up all the time in limitations issues, so I think it’s a stretch to call the majority decision a stretch. If there was a “lack of reality” to the majority decision (and there was), it was class-based. Normal people understand you can’t start a lawsuit against your employer while you are still working there.
(On the other hand, the employer has a point too, since part of the point of limitation periods is to let businesses destroy records.)
It’s true that the employer perspective has a lot less weight in a world where virtually-infinite data storage is virtually free.
The way to show that there was discrimination is to circulate identical resumes with an Anglo, a stereotypically black and a Spanish name, and see what happens.
If you can show that there is a statistically significant difference in response, there’s discrimination. . . . On the other hand, if you can’t, there isn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, as an academic I just love controlled statistical studies . . .
BUT
. . . I would be loath to assume that discrimination existed only when and where such rigorous studies had been done (and been peer-reviewed), discounting entirely the experiences of those who had been – in some cases for generations – the objects of such discrimination.
It strikes me as a bit like saying, “Your own life is meaningless, regardless of the rejections you think you have received. You’re not officially a victim until WE say you are.”
And I refuse to say that.
Quoting:
In research that we conducted with our colleague Andrew D. Martin, we studied the votes of federal court of appeals judges in many areas of the law, from environmental cases to capital punishment and sex discrimination. For the most part, we found no difference in the voting patterns of male and female judges, except when it comes to sex discrimination cases. There, we found that female judges are approximately 10 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party bringing the discrimination claim. We also found that the presence of a female judge causes male judges to vote differently. When male and female judges serve together to decide a sex discrimination case, the male judges are nearly 15 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party alleging discrimination than when they sit with male judges only.
This holds true even after we account for judges’ ideological leanings.
Marginal Revolution
“Marginal Revolution”
I read it in the Washington Post a few days ago, myself, where it was written as part of an article by Christina L. Boyd and Lee Epstein.
Gary, I had a better description, but Typepad kept rejecting the comment. That’s all that was allowed, and I was rightly frustrated.
Dr. Ngo,
Of course discrimination can happen even where there is no rigorous evidence proving that it happened. But the fact that an unsuccessful applicant thinks they lost because of discrimination is (rightly) discounted by courts. Equally, testimony, no matter how sincere, by employers that they didn’t mean to discriminate should also be discounted by courts.
Eric, that’s a study I didn’t know about. I’ve seen other studies that show a smaller effect. I am not qualified to say whether the Boyd-Epstein-Martin study is better methodologically, and I’m suspicious of the attention to appellate courts, but it still is only a 10% difference. Sotomayor claimed that gender would make a difference in “most” cases, and didn’t limit herself to sex discrimination cases. The social science just doesn’t back her up.
“Sotomayor claimed that gender would make a difference in “most” cases, and didn’t limit herself to sex discrimination cases. The social science just doesn’t back her up.”
Eh. She might have been wrong about “most” but the point is, diversity helps. Even if it’s only 10% (or a little less) of the time that it’s necessarily helpful.
See also this piece from yesterday’s Times.
I agree that diversity is helpful. I’m skeptical how genuinely diverse the courts are ever going to be.
but it still is only a 10% difference. Sotomayor claimed that gender would make a difference in “most” cases, and didn’t limit herself to sex discrimination cases. The social science just doesn’t back her up.
If you assume that cases have only two possible resolutions (ie finding for one side or the other), then your reasoning is sound. This turns out not to be true, though- a given case has many possible resolutions.
Just because the study grouped those results into categories for easy analysis shouldn’t obscure the matter.
p.s. to Jes, I’ll let my comments stand as they are. To the extent that they could be interpreted in the manner that you propose — and I don’t think that they can — I’ve expressly rejected that interpretation.
Ironically, you spent the first half of the thread defending the notion that you could take a rather forced parsing of a sentence and call it ‘literal’ and ‘a fact’. Pity Jes doesn’t get to play.
Katherine made a (rather half-hearted IMO) defense of the smear. Seb and others got the better of the argument in comments IMO. In other threads where Pickering came up Seb and others again had the stronger points.
Shorter OC: 1)I agree with my position, even when articulated by other people and 2)I have no idea who John Roberts or Sam Alito are.
gwangung, you make a very valid point. However, how many times do we see her play the “wise Latina” line in contrast to the “wise Latina who has many years experience and education in American law”?
That could easily be defended by saying the “wise Latina” line is catchy, it’s a little provocative (as evidenced by our discussion right now), and it’s simply more appealing than the alternative, but I’d still feel more comfortable if she mentioned her experience and knowledge (which is unquestionable) more than her “wisdom” (which is inherently subjective).
And as an added bonus, I refer to the National Review cover. Some may have found (or will, if you haven’t seen it yet, though I recommend you do) offensive. However, I recommend you see Newsy’s coverage of the cover and observe that although yes, it does an ethnic mash-up, it can still be seen as at least somewhat humorous. I guess you get painted as Buddha if you say you’re wise instead of letting your wisdom (which I don’t doubt S. has) shine through your actions.