A Shame
Sonia Sotomayor might be a perfectly good candidate for the Supreme Court. I find Obama's system for choosing a tad unfortunate. He basically asked for a list of the best minority candidates and chose the one he thought best. Or maybe he got a big list of all good candidates and put little stars by the minorities. Either way, clearly it was a factor, as he acknowledges.
Simply put, I don't think race should be a factor. I know I am in the minority. I also know using race as a plus factor applies equally to Dems and Republicans (Clarence Thomas). We could go round and round on this issue. The way I can accept using race as a factor is a pragmatic one - that's the way the world is. Race is used as a factor for colleges and job hires all over the country. But this logic is flawed. Because it could lead to the exact opposite conclusion as well. "That's just the way things are" simply justifies any status quo assumption.
No, the issue for me is a sense of legitimacy. If the NBA suddenly decided to adopt affirmative action and make a quota for good Asian-American basketball players at the expense of better African American basketball players, I'd stop watching. Maybe it would be good for the NBA - maybe more Asian Americans would watch. Maybe it would be good for race relations. It would certainly make the NBA more diverse. But it would be totally lame if you ask me. And I'd stop watching.
6 comments:
I completely disagree with you and here's why:
1) You think it's just a coincidence that almost all of the people in this job until now have been white men? You think their gender and their race didn't have something to do with it?
2) Yes, it would be totally ridiculous to start mandating race quotients in other occupations, like athletes, but this is not a job like any other job. A supreme court justice represents justice and in America that is defined, variously, as equal under the law and being judged by a jury of your peers. Far from suggesting a post-racial America, Obama's choice and the very intentional way he talks about race is saying this is NOT a post-racial America. We look at people who look different than we do and we notice. Race matters. And the best way to start to deal with it is when it comes time to add a person to a nine-member body that gets to decide really important things about the entire nation is pick someone (a perfectly qualified someone, by the way) who looks different than the rest of those people and more like a substantial percentage of Americans.
3) Which brings me to point three. A lot of lawyers I know (who are now in their 40s and making partner and stuff) were talking classes about 10 years ago on learning not to use the passive voice. This means, instead of talking like, "it was decided" or "process was served", they have to identify who is doing what to whom. There's a similar kind of movement in history departments and academia in general. These seems like a minor change in syntax but what it really does is force the writer or speaker to include themselves as a subject in what they are discussing. In other words, subjectivity matters. Who you are, where you come from, how you think matters. One of the more challenging things that Sotomayor has been saying is that *because* of the life she has lead until now, she is differently equipped than some of her peers on the court. Judges who are not able to admit to themselves that their own personal life experiences influence their judgement of others, even with all the training and discipline and rigor that a long career has got to give you, are weaker judges.
4) It's a nine-person court. Even if she was nutty and unprofessional enough to do it, it would be pretty tough for her to do much crusading.
1) not a coincidence, but a reflection of the historically white majority and elite of our country. i'm not arguing it is fair, but it is historical. and some of those old crusty white dudes opened up opportunities for a lot of other races and genders. is it a coincidence that muslims rule in egypt despite having coptic minorities? or the shia in iran? i mean, come on, this whole line of argument is silly and rooted in the crusty old ideas of identity-politics.
2) maybe race matters. maybe it gives you a different perspective. i think these questions are debatable at the very least. but whether the supreme court should look like stinking lincoln avenue - i'll happily pass. do i want the court to be a jury of my peers? no. if i wanted a jury of my peers, i'll watch american idol. i want them to be fair minded and experts on the constitution. do i think it should be a plus or minus whether they are a woman, a man, black, white, hispanic? no, i do not.
3) I learned not to learn the passive voice in middle school. (although i have used it too much)
4) lame argument, basically saying it doesn't matter. well, if that's true, then it wouldn't matter the other way, either
and for the record, there is no reason to think she would be a disaster as a justice. she might be incredible. that isn't my point. my point is obama using race/gender as a primary criteria is a flawed way of thinking about people.
Saying that she’s one of nine isn’t saying she doesn’t matter, it’s saying her opinion is going to get rafted together with a bunch of other opinions. So she’s not going to single-handedly sway things one way or another in the Supreme Court, she’s going to be one of the voices talking.
Look, I actually think that her race matters less than her gender which matters less than her upbringing in poverty in America when it comes to her life experience influencing how she does her job. Everything I’ve read about her suggests that, totally separate of these considerations, she’s very well suited for the job.
What’s exciting about the identity politics aspect of putting her in that job is that she’s the first person who looks like her (ie: first Hispanic, first woman of color) to do that job. It’s worth talking about and Obama should be better qualified than most to know whether or not it’s appropriate to point that out and have a discussion on it. It is. And then we move on. Did the average American fixate on Obama’s race when he first became a serious contender for the job he has now? Yeah, I think so. Do they now? I don’t think so. It doesn’t really matter in the long run, but at the introduction stage, it somehow does. So we have a little celebration for continuing progress and then everyone gets down to work. That’s the tenor of what I see going on, nothing more extra-special than that.
actually, the way the supreme court works, opinions are not rafted together into a consensus. they are nine individual justices. they only hear certain cases that are petitioned to the court. when they hear a case, they vote on it. the chief justice assigns a judge to write a Majority Opinion. Each of the other justices are allowed to write either a dissenting opinion or a concurring opinion (if they voted the same way, but for a different reason). A lot of the most important ideas in constitutional law come from dissenting opinions and over time, those factor into how the constitution is later interpreted and what cases are heard in the future.
but, yes, she is one vote in nine, but her opinions will either concur with the majority, concur with the minority, or be of her own. they will not be grafted together.
and i guess we just disagree on whether her looks matter. sure, i'd like some sexy sarah palin supreme court justice as eye candy rather than looking at anton scalia's wrinkled forehead, but i'm not silly enough to allow that impulse to matter. my favorite thing i read about her was that she decided to become a lawyer because she loved perry mason. go entertainment industry!
I will admit that when you say that about Sarah Palin, it feels me with abject terror.
Also, I'm formulating a thesis on how casting Geena Davis and Morgan Freeman as president in various Hollywood movies has helped to bring about the Democratic race in 08.
Post a Comment