Monday, July 13, 2009
Confirmation Hearings for Sonia Sotomayor
I've been watching the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. It's fascinating to see how each of the speakers does or does not construct the influence or value of identity. For some of them, it's as though race and gender are only sources of bias when you're not a white male! Some Senators talked about how she was an example of the American Dream, a person of "humble origin" becoming successful. Senator Gillibrand (NY) noted that her ethnicity and gender were just two of the many assets she brings to the Supreme Court, further diversifying the perspective of the Court as a whole. There is a big debate around the concept of empathy and should a judge have it. I couldn't help but think these hearings would be terrific fodder for classroom discussion. Race and gender (and to a certain extent, class) are forefront in civic discourse. Despite the potential ugliness, I think that's a good thing. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
These kinds of discussions help us to understand what people value, especially those who are charged with making difficult decisions and upholding our laws in the most difficult of situations.
Our recent grad class on leadership for equity and access would have enjoyed discussing this topic, for sure!
Can being compassionate NOT be a quality one would want from a judge? Hmmmmm....is it enough of a problem to not confirm her?
Sonia Sotomayor’s “biased empathy” is a source for discussion because she is not a White male with “norm empathy”...a Puerto Rican woman, from the Bronx, is what some see (republican chaos, for their own agenda). To see her as a highly qualified person whose awareness of her background makes her super capable of contributing positively to our justice system is not recognized, rather questioned.
To claim that her presence is a disruption, rather than a contribution to the system, is highly irritating. To see her background as a quality which aids her in not holding bias is not acknowledged, rather is seen as a hindrance. If she makes a judgment that is for the “other”, then it must hold bias, because she is one of “them”, and her decision was not made in the name of justice. Basically, if she were a White male and made the same “controversial” judgments, would the decisions be perceived differently? Maybe even admirably…
Although her experiences and background shape who she is, who she is, does not shape her decision making anymore than her soon to be future colleagues. Whether bias exists in our justice system as a whole, is an entirely separate discussion.
Republicans ask…
How could Sotomayor possibly judge the “other” without bias when she is an “other”?
I ask…
How the hell do you not see the bias in your own question?
Post a Comment