The "wise Latina" Comment

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=all
Emphasis Added

That was long, but I put the full text because the context is important. Reading all of this together provides a context that has been missing in the debate over President Barack Obama's supreme court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The harshest critics have branded the judge as a racist, while others have suggested that the comments were a mistake. However, it should be obvious to any honest and informed observer that such a statement is neither racist nor mistaken. It seems clear that these words represents a basic truth: one's personal experiences matter in the decisions they make.

Some, including the President, have argued that the "wise Latina" sentences represented a poor choice of words. This would be a plausible explanation if the statement stood in isolation. However, in context it is clear that the original meaning of Judge Sotomayor's words has been twisted beyond recognition. Many on the right have repeatedly stated that she said she is a better judge than a white man because she is a Latina. Some have even extended this to be a statement of superiority, that the judge thinks she is better than white people.

It always amazes me that white people manage to get away with saying that minorities said things we never said.

Clearly, Judge Sotomayor was arguing a point with which there should be no argument: one's personal experience matters. If that were not true, than it would be OK to have an all white male Supreme Court for now until the end of the age. However, we know that such a bench would not be a good idea. How do we know that? From experience. We used to have an all white male Supreme Court. During this time, the Court denied citizenship based on race, upheld racial segregation, and ignored discrimination against women. I doubt that an African American who had the experience of using sub-standard, segregated facilities would agree that separate could be equal.

Think about it. Minorities have experiences that whites don't have. These experiences can prove useful in deciding difficult cases. If it were as simple as knowing and applying the law, then there would be no need for the multi-level appeals process that we have today. However, as we all learned in elementary school (or at least were were supposed to learn), it's the job of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to interpret the law. Interpretation is always difficult, because different people always have different interpretations of the same thing. This is no different when it comes to the law. Again, all judges would agree on everything if this was not true. We know that judges often disagree sharply on the interpretation of certain laws. This disagreement is due, in part, to a difference in experience. Each judge forms there interpretation by drawing from a wealth of knowledge and understanding build up over many decades of experience. These experiences help them to understand a situation and, ultimately, pass judgement.

Considering all this, it's reasonable to assume that a diversity of experience would be a benefit to the court. I don't know how well Judge Sotomayor's parents spoke English when the emigrated from Puerto Rico, but I would assume that here experience growing up in a home with immigrant parents would give her a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding those who speak English as a second language, and better equip her to rule in cases dealing with such an issue. If there were a case involving discrimination against African American students in a public high school, I would hope that, being an African American who was once a student in a public high school, I would have a more intimate understanding of the forces at play, and thus be able to render a better ruling than someone who understands the situation only from words on a paper or brief verbal arguments.

But let's extend this even further. We live in a society in which whites constitute the dominant culture group. This creates white privilege, and one of the many unfortunate side effects of white privilege is that it is largely invisible to whites. This produces mass hypocrisy, such as when white commentators bemoan the fact that a Latina judicial nominee will be influenced by her experience as a minority, forgetting that their experience as a member of the racial majority impacts their own views. Another side effect is that, except for when they decide to complain about "reverse racism," whites are not forced to confront issues of race. Of course many do because they want to make our nation a better place and understand that the only way to do so is to confront and seek to correct its flaws. However, whites usually have the choice to ignore race but such blissful ignorance is not an option for minorities. This means that minorities usually have spent more time exercising the intellectual muscles that deal with racial issues. Their views are often more developed, complex, and comprehensive as this is a necessity for survival and success. As far as I can see, this allows for minorities judges to decide cases with greater clarity and thoughtfulness than an average white judge. Does this mean that minority judges are automatically better? No. But it does mean that in this particular area their life's experiences have forced them to develop skills that many whites have not, and when they do it is almost always by choice, not by necessity.

Furthermore, let's remember that one of the purposes of the court is to protect the rights of citizens. Who do you think needs more protection from the court: the oppressed minority or the dominant majority? Clearly the minority. Given this, there is a real benefit to having a minority perspective on the court - something which is currently non-existent (unless you count Justice Thomas, which I don't). Thankfully, there is one woman on the bench, but I'm pretty sure that women make up more than 1/9 of America.

So, would a "wise Latina women" be able to "draw on the richness of her experiences" to reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"? I would say most certainly. But then, I guess according to conservatives I could never reach a fair conclusion on such an issue because I myself am a minority.

And white people are never biased.

Do the White Kids Have to do This, Too?

Consider these Backgrounds

Barack Obama:

• Columbia University
• Harvard Law School, first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review
• Notably successful community organizer
• Constitutional law professor, University of Chicago
  
• Effective state legislator for seven years, popular on both sides of the aisle
• History-making U.S. Senator

Sonia Sotomayor:

• Princeton University
• Yale Law School, editor of the Yale Law Journal
• Professor and Lecturer at Yale and Columbia
• Federal judge for the past 17 years, nominated for positions by both Democratic and Republican presidents
  

Colin Powell:

• Four Star General
• National Security Advisor
• Only African American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• First African American Secretary of State
  

Bill Richardson:

• Congressman
• Ambassador to the United Nations
• Governor and Chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association
  
• Secretary of Education
• Harvard Professor
• International Diplomat

I began with this list just by looking at President Obama and Judge Sotomayor, both of whom have such similar biographies. As I was putting together their list, I also though of General Colin Powell, who provides a representative from the right. He reminded me of Governor Richardson, who also has exceptional foreign policy bona fides.

What all four of these individuals represent are successful and socially accepted minorities with exceptional resumes. Success at Ivy League universities. A diversity of experience. The ability to excel at complex task. Great respect among colleges. Looking at them, I can't help but wonder, why don't we require the same from potential white leaders?

Consider George Bush, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. By now we all know that Bush was able to go to Yale and Harvard in large part because of his father. He did not perform particularly well at these schools, and went on to be a rather unsuccessful business man. John McCain also performed poorly at the Naval Academy, although he did earn our nation's respect by showing genuine heroism as a prisoner of war. He went on to become a long-time U.S. Senator. Sarach Palin didn't do poorly at just one college - she went to five in six years to get her bachelor's degree. Of the three, McCain is the only one who can make a real claim to being a better than average elected official.

Would we accept such a resume from a non-white public figure?

What if Barack Obama was a sub-par high school student, but was admitted to Columbia and then to Harvard only because they needed to fill a quota of African Americans and didn't care who they got? What if when he got to those schools he performed poorly? What if as a community organizer he had run the organization he lead into bankruptcy and chaos? What if as a state legislator and U.S. Senator he had done very little of note? Would he still be President of the United States?

Or, what if he had attended Michigan State and Temple Law school - two quality schools with much less prestige - and still performed very well there? Would we have as much respect for him?

What if Sonia Sotomayor had struggled at multiple schools over six years to get her bachelor's degree, barely made it out of law school, barely passed the bar, and, a year and a half ago stumbled into a federal judgeship? And what if, during that brief time as a judge, she came under fire for ethics violations? Would she still be a legitimate possibility to fill a Supreme Court vacancy?

Or, again, what if she did very well at a less notable school? How would we look at her?

Now, go back to my original question - why don't we hold white people to the same standards? Why is it that non-whites must be exceptional - better than all the rest - in order to qualify? Why, when it's OK for whites to be good, do blacks have to be great? Why would a John Edwards cross the threshold of acceptability as a presidential candidate before Barack Obama? Why Joe Biden over Bill Richardson? How are Republicans questioning the qualifications of literally the most experienced SCOTUS nominee in 100 years?

And, what does this mean for me, and the thousands of non-whites like me who don't go to Ivy League schools, and who will likely work "regular-people" jobs when we graduate? For all the hoopla and national "good jobs" that surrounded President Obama's election, I still wonder "can I be president of the United States? Can I as a black man with a less than 4.0 GPA from a semi-public, North Philly university really be president?"

Why do we think it's a good thing to tell little black boys that they can be president if they work hard like Barack Obama? We don't tell them they could be president if they slack off like George Bush. The "Be Like Barack" movement is nothing more than an acceptance of inequality: "You still have to work twice as hard to get as far as white people, but you can still do it, so it's all good."

It's not all good.

Scratch that.

It ain't all good.

Race, Drugs, and Michael Phelps

Last week, swimmer Michel Phelps, arguably the greatest Olympian in the modern history of the games, returned to the sport for the first time since pictures of him smoking weed surfaced. I was shocked, and, frankly, offended by the way in which the situation was discussed. Understandably, many in the media were excited for Phelps's return after the way he electrified the Beijing games. From a sports perspective, everyone should be excited.

However, there seemed to be a sentiment that what Phelps did to "get in trouble" was trivial, and that he should be let alone. He's behavior was portrayed as OK, normal, expected for a young man his age. It was argued that he should be shielded from harsh criticism. The will to forgive and forget is astonishing in this situation.

For perspective, we can compare Phelps to another world class athlete who is just now re-emerging after participating in illegal activity: Michael Vick. Look at the way this Michael has been turned into a villain. Granted, we live in a society where being mean to dogs is much more frowned upon than smoking weed. Still, as I watched the coverage of Phelps, I couldn't help but wonder, What role, if any, does Phelps's race play in the way we evaluate his behavior. Had that been Allen Iverson or Ryan Howard or LaDanian Tomlinson in that picture would there be the same near-unanimous desire to forget the whole thing?

Maybe there would, but I just can't help but think that the reaction would be substantially different. Not completely opposite, but still different.

This all made me think about what Tim Wise said in This is Your Nation on White Privilege:

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

Seriously, what if it had been then candidate Obama with the pregnant teenage daughter? He would have been laughed out of the election. In fact, he wouldn't have even run, because he would have known that he had no shot. White girl gets pregnant: "good job not giving the baby up," "everyone makes mistakes," "kids are kids." Black girl get's pregnant: "she's irresponsible and promiscuous," "another welfare queen," "what's wrong with them?" As much as we like to pretend that we're a colorblind society that wouldn't have such a double standard, we know it's the truth.

But back to marijuana. Why such a different response to blacks and drugs. They are portrayed as criminals who deserve to go to jail. The use of drugs is a major part of the false image that has been drawn of African American youth. It's used as a way to rationalize disparities in education, employment, and incarceration. Black athletes who use drugs are immoral, irresponsible, and bad role models. White athletes just made mistakes.

Michel Phelps v. Allen Iverson
Barry Bonds v. Mark McGuire
Brett Myers v. Michel Vick

There is a higher standard for black athletes. There is higher standard for blacks in general. Another comparison:

George Bush: recovering alcoholic, bad grades, failed businesses, and governor with relatively little power
Barack Obama: head of Harvard Law review, good student, successful community organizer, law professor, successful state legislator, and U.S. Senator

Yet, who is accused of succeeding because of "affirmative action"? Who was labeled as inexperienced?

So that's sports and politics, with a dash of education.

Then there's the world of celebrity. Why isn't rock music vilinized the way rap is?

Why is Brittany Spears more acceptable than Beyonce? Why are white sexually explicit movies artistic and intellectual, while similar black movies are soft-porn trash?
MTV: American
BET: Immoral

We could also look at religious commentary.

George Bush can speak at a religious school with racist policies (Bob Jones University did not allow interracial dating without a parent's permission), but Barack Obama is racist for attending Jeremiah Wright's church? And while we're on the subject of Rev. Wright, how is it that he can be labeled as racist for making statements based in truth - because American indifference to the world can inflame hatred, and the U.S. does have preventing blacks with STDs from receiving treatment, and Hillary Clinton really doesn't know what it's like to be a black man - and he's called a racist, but John McCain can make explicitly racist comments and no one flinches?

How do we decide what religious leaders get to be just religious leaders, and which ones must be turned into political figures.

But, I've gone off on a tangent again. The point I set out to make is that blacks are routinely held to a higher standard that their white counter parts. This is especially true when it comes to drug use, and particularly well illustrated in the case of Michel Phelps. Personally, I like Phelps and as a sports fan am not too concerned with his "recreational" activities. I don't think it was a good thing to do, but I'm not loosing any sleep over it. However, in context, I thing the reaction to Phelps shows just how pervasive racism is in our society. If Michel Phelps were black he'd be in a totally different situation right now. That, my friends, is just a small look into the true nature of race in America.

This White Privilege Thing

Just some thoughts here...
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about this whole concept of white privilege. Growing up as an African American in suburban Philadelphia, I've always had an awareness that certain avenues were open to whites that I could not as easily pass through. However, it wasn't until I was about to go to college that I read an article that pulled together all the things that I knew about race into the concept of white privilege.

As part of my preparation for my summer teaching internship in 2005, I was required to read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh. On the one hand, the article was eye-opening for me, because, like most people, I was used to discussing race only in terms of how it impacted non-whites. There was a certain liberation in the idea that discussing whiteness was legitimate, that it should be a part of the public conversation on race, and not just something non-whites talk about privately. On the other hand, the article didn't strike me as particularly controversial or outlandish. It really seemed to be stating the obvious.

Over the years that followed, I have continuously been amazed at how offended many are by the idea of white privilege. I guess I still have held on to a shred of youthful innocence that makes it hard for me to believe anyone wouldn't clearly see the advantages of being white in America. It makes me wonder:

1. Why are white people so uncomfortable talking about their whiteness? Two possibilities come to mind. (1) Some have been raised to be "colorblind" and not see their own color or the color of anyone else. I have to say that this is noble, but dangerous, because by turning a blind eye to race, we render ourselves incapable of recognizing racism. What other problems get better if you ignore them? Cancer? Crime? I think one of the unfortunate consequences of well-intentioned colorblindness is that it makes whites incapable of seeing the benefits that come along with their lighter skin. (2) Some whites are just not comfortable with the idea that they have achieved success based on anything other than merit. From childhood, children in the Untied States are taught that this is a meritocricy, where people are rewarded for what they do, not for who they are. White privilege threatens this ideology. It worries me that we may be so obsessed with the fanticy of America that we can't see the truth of America. And the sad part is, if we would realize how unlike a meritocricy our society is, we could then work to fix the problems and become more of a meritocricy.

This brings up another point.

2. Why are whites so obssessed with advantages given to non-whites, but incapable of acknowledging their own advantages? Seriously, if you listened to some whites, particularly those on the conservative right, you'd think that being black was some sweepstakes or something. You'd think that being white was a disadvantage.

But, of course, many would the say "oh, no, no, no. We've come a long way but there's still much work to be done," in an attempt to acknowlege that there is still racism that impacts non-whites negatively. So...

3. If we can acknoledge disadvantages for non-whites, why can't we acknowlegde the resulting advantages for whites? I mean, it seems simple. If we're running the 100 meter dash, and you get to start 10 meters ahead of me, then I'm at a disadvantage. Well, that also means that you have an advantage.

4. Why do some whites think that the concept of white privilege teaches that all white people are raicst? Why can't people distinguish between calling individuals racist and saying that we live in a society that is set up to privilege one group over others? To me, it's clear that whites don't choose white privilege any more than they choose to be white. But it seems some people can't understand the difference between individual prejudice and systemic racism.

So, like I said, just some thoughts on this whole thing. I feel bad constantly saying "white people" because I don't want to generalize. Mainly, I just wantetd to through these ideas out there and see where the discussion goes. Hopefully, we have lots of differing views out there so that we can really dig deep on these issues.

White Privilege: Tim Wise

Not long ago I posted a set of videos attacking the teaching of white privilege, among other things, at the University of Delaware. For this post in our ongoing series on white privilege, I decided to post a video that takes an opposite view. In this video, Tim Wise makes the case for the existence of white privilege.

I don't want to offer too much commentary here, but I do want to say that I appreciate the incorporation of historical context in his development of the concept. So watch, enjoy, and comment. Do you agree? What are the strengths and weaknesses in his argument?

White Privilege: Teaching Race at The University of Delewar

For a long time I debated myself on writing on the topic of white privilege. Did I really have the skill to describe and debate such an important and complex topic? Did I really want to get into all of that? I could keep a whole blog for a long time on just the topic of white privilege. Recently, with all the talk of living in a post-race society now that we have a black president, and with the current discussion here at LC21 and over on Free Racine, I decided that this was an important topic. However, how would I bring it up? I pondered this for a while until I stumbled onto the clips that I have posted below.

I found these clips posted at an apparently conservative blog called Founding Bloggers. It's an infomercial/PSA about a former University of Delaware residential life orientation program that was essentially exposing students to the concept of white privilege. In the videos, members of trustee boards are warned not to let similar programs destroy the reputations of their schools. If you live in the Philadelphia media market, you may remember this story.

Now, of course, I have my own opinion on this. If you follow my blog you can probably guess that I agree with the basic aim of the residential life program, although I wouldn't approve of all of the activities as they are described by those in the video.

So, here you have it, my foray into the hotly contested area of white privilege. For now, I'll keep posting videos from voices on either side of the issue, with some of my own commentary mixed in. One of these days, I'll get around to writing in depth my own observations.

Enjoy and Comment!

President Obama Can't Talk About Race

Every superhero has something he can't do. Superman can't read your mind. Batman can't fly. Spiderman can't turn into a giant tiger.

Sometimes, it seems like President Obama is a superhero. He defeated what was considered the nation's most potent political machine. He was elected president, despite being a black man in a white America. He even plays basketball, and actually plays well. And he does it all without breaking a sweat (except for maybe that basketball part). But there's one thing he can't do, no matter how hard wants to: talk openly, honestly, and consistently about race.

That was the topic of a recent POLITICO article by Nia-Malika Henderson and Carrie Budoff Brown:

It was a year ago today that Barack Obama, then a candidate for president fearing a divisive racial backlash over his pastor, took to the stage in Philadelphia and said it was time to have a new conversation about race.

“We have a choice in this country,” Obama said that day. “We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the O.J. trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. . . .That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’ "

But in the year since that speech – through campaign and convention, election and inauguration – Barack Obama hasn’t taken part in the discussion of race in America in any sustained way, the way he did that day in Philadelphia to get out of a campaign jam.

Why is this? Henderson and Budoff Brown point to various explanations floating around. Some say Obama is "post-racial" and represents the fact that the nation has moved past discussing old, divisive racial categories. Others argue that it's just not in Obama's nature to talk about race. Still others suggest that there's just so much that Obama is dealing with, mainly the economy, that to have a full-blown discussion on race right now would be an unwise allocation of his time and energy resources.

However, I think there are two other factors at play that really prevent Obama from participating in the discussion on race in the way he may like to, and that I certainly wish he would.

Let's first consider that Philadelphia speech that the POLITICO article references. When Obama came to the National Constitution Center to deliver that speech, it was after much national outrage over controversial soundbites from his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (who, ironically, grew up in Philly). Rev. Wright's comments on race were taken by many to be racist and anti-American. However, some saw at least nuggets of truth and honesty in Rev. Wright's ill-expressed words.

Obama's widely hailed speech was an attempt to move the nation toward having an honest, adult conversation on the very complex topic of race. What he soon found out is that the United States is simply a nation of small children in the bodies of adults. There was no willingness to engage in a real conversation on the merit of Jeremiah Wright's words or the motivation behind his rage. There was no real attempt to discuss the complexity of Obama's grandmother's views on race (except for maybe by accident on Angelo Cattaldi's Morning Show). Certainly, the speech received high praise from the mainstream media. However, that praise was framed in the tired perspective of moving on from racial division or constant obsession with race. The measuring stick for the success of the speech was how well Obama could put to rest the discussion of race or how well he could repudiate Wright's words.

I still argue that the speech was totally misinterpreted. If you actually listen to Obama's words - instead of trying to force them into and old and inaccurate narrative of racial history in America - you'll see that he was calling the nation to a more complex and mature conversation on race. Remember, Obama talked about how he could not "disown" Wright, and attempted to explain the source of Wright's anger. Also, remember that Obama did not initially leave Trinity United Church of Christ. Clearly, he had a more complex view of Wright than most of pitch-fork-toting America.

Still, most took his words and ran in a totally different direction. The United States proved itself to be a nation of cowards by avoiding a real conversation on race. Obama's speech became a new excuse to try to be post racial. So, when we consider that Obama does not speak much on the issue of race, at least not to the white media, we must remember that he tried that before, and the nation gave a resounding "we're not ready."

The second factor is that, even though he's the leader of the free world, Barack Obama is still a black man in America. The fact that there are certain things that a black person can not talk about openly without being attacked beyond reason hasn't changed. There can be steep consequences for a black person saying something that white America does not approve of. That's just part of white privilege and racial dynamics in this country. For examples, see Jeremiah Wright, Eric Holder, and even some of Obama's comments, such as calling his "typical white person" comment on Caltaldi's show.

For President Obama, more than any other African American, and more now than in the past, such statements carry a greater risk. There is, of course, the political risk. There is also the possibility that they become distractions that hinder his ability to enact key policy initiatives. With many crisis or near-crisis situations on his plate, the President simply can't afford that.

However, we can.

We can speak up on race. We can talk about how racial dynamics in this country binds the tongues of black leaders in this country. We can begin to create a climate that confronts race, so that when this financial crisis has subsided (which will hopefully be soon), the President will be able to engage the nation in a REAL conversation on race. And, when that time comes, we will be able to hold the president accountable for having this conversation. Although there will still be many in this country who won't be ready for such a conversation, one thing we've learned from the long journey to a black head of state is that waiting for the nation to be "ready" is not an option.