The Fight Over Sonia Sotomayor: Why Were So Few Hispanics on TV Debating the First Hispanic Supreme Court Nominee?

I've figured out what annoys me most about the media circus that has erupted in the wake of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

It's not watching a long procession of white males -- and a few females -- dissect what Sotomayor meant when she said eight years ago that she hopes a Latina would make better legal decisions about discrimination cases than a white male.

(And where the heck is the Senate's highest-profile Hispanic member, former Republican National Committee chair and Florida U.S. senator Mel Martinez, in this debate?)

It's not seeing the predictable right-wing extremists say extreme things. Though it is hard for me to decide whether I should laugh or fume upon hearing Rush Limbaugh -- the guy who made a satirical song for his radio show called Barack the Magic Negro -- call someone else a racist.

It's not even seeing a procession of journalists present the same three criticisms of her past, while glossing over a career's worth of legal judgments, academic achievements and job accomplishments.

Or seeing so few of those same journalists take a few minutes to unearth Republicans talking about the wonderful impact from the cultural background of conservative Supreme Court nominees such as Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

What irks me most, is what happens whenever race surfaces as an issue in politics: white politicians and pundits pretend their race and culture have no impact on their sensibilities.

It's an unspoken subtext in many of these conversations. On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked "What happened to the idea that justice should be blind?" later asking about the impact of "identity politics" in one of her decisions.

Why does the term "identity politics" only surface when people of color voice their concerns about stereotyping and institutional bias?

A CNN story quoted a tally of her decisions on discrimination from a blog, noting that she ruled against a finding of discrimination 80 percent of the time -- as if rejecting claims of discrimination were, somehow, proof that she's fair.

In the end, it is a knife that cuts both ways: when people of color acknowledge that their ethnic heritage gives them an insight their white colleagues may lack, then they are more easily reduced to caricature.

I think it was telling that in all the political TV chat about Sotomayor I watched over the weekend, it was PBS host Gwen Ifill, who is black, who made the point that few people find controversy in the way white men's cultural experience have shaped their opinions and professional decisions.

I've always said, in these situations, context counts. If someone makes a racially clumsy remark, and they have no history of living out that remark in other ways, it's probably just a stupid mistake.

But television loves conflict, and political TV depends on a cast of disturbingly similar pundits and politicians to discuss the issues facing an increasingly diverse nation. I couldn't imagine how frustrating it would be as a Latino to watch this debate play out with nearly no Hispanic voices involved in the discussion.

My second biggest gripe about coverage: Seeing Hispanics subjected to a level of callousness that likely would not be tolerated against black people.

There are few hosts who would feel comfortable seeing the NAACP compared to the Ku Klux Klan; I would hope most would see that as analogous to comparing anti-Semitism watchdog the Anti-Defamation League to the Nazi party.

But former congressman Tom Tancredo had no problem calling the Hispanic-centered civil rights group La Raza a "Latino KKK" on CNN, just as others have said -- quoted anonymously by journalists such as CNN's John King -- that the honors graduate of Princeton might not be smart enough to sit on the court.

Indeed, as U.S. Sen. John Cornyn sat on ABC's This Week Sunday criticizing Sotomayor, he also stuck up for filibustered George W. Bush nominee Miguel Estrada -- a lawyer suggested for the court of appeals in 2001 with no prior experience as a judge -- and Clarence Thomas, who saw allegations of sexual harassment surface soon after his nomination was announced.

So does experience really count? Why do so many arguments against Sotomayor seem to lean against common sense and history? And why aren't the hosts of these shows pressing politicians harder on all of this?

I hope, when the Senate prepares to debate her confirmation, they have more substantive issues at hand than a line from a 2001 speech, a 2008 decision reached with two other judges and a line from a 2005 speech.

The nation deserves a better debate on its next possible Supreme Court justice. It's time traditional journalists, columnists and TV anchors worked harder to give them one.

Follow Eric Deggans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deggans

Comments

[CosmicChaos]

NAACP and Anti-Defamation League HAVE been defamed by calling them the same as the KKK and the Nazi party in the past. Sadly it happens ALL THE TIME. It is unacceptable and should be unexcussable.

Racism is alive and well in America. Only Racists use the term Reverse Racism. Racists are Racists no matter which racial group they are from.

Sonia Sotomayor has not shown Racist attitudes which is to opress (consciously or unconsciously) a racial group (even your own).

Racial and sexual identity obviously colors how a person views events. I, as a White Jewish female, have all my opinions affected by that background. My opinions are also affected by growing up in multiculturally diverse neighborhoods of varying wealth levels.

I was deeply upset that the majority of the talking heads that discussed Sonia Sotomayor were white and male. I was more upset by the fact that they often used phrases that are commonly used for discriminating against women and minorities. I couldn't believe that no one was there that would challenge these talking heads devaluation of the mental capacity of women and emphasizing of the emotionalism of women. I couldn't believe that they tried to use Sonia Sotomayor as an excuse to get rid of Affirmative Action when she herself has said that she would have never been allowed in th college she graduated with Honors from without Affirmative Action.

[Teamster]

Before time began in the United States or a s a common reminder , in time,
Ox cart Stage coach and the new ford motor car left ruts in the road.

It is still in the american vocabulary today.
Ruts. depressions in the path that entraps the traveler .

Qualifications morality understanding of the foundations of law . That which
guided the persons that drafted of bill of rights .

George Washington prayed aloud often , saw no seperation of his office and the demands
of leader ship.

We still become entapped in ruts along the way of what all freedom really means for America.

[jackson1015]

Great post by Eric Deggins....I had wondered exactly the same thing.

[dagumpster]

I would suggest reading this link http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/ by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. Choosing a Supreme Court nominee does not have to be a blood sport. The media and the pundits should be embarrassed the way they have conducted themselves over the nominee of Sotomajor. They are trying to make news when there is nothing to report yet.

[Genna]

Agreed.

There is no way in hell AAs would accept comparing the NAACP to David Duke and the KKK. It would cause us to start writing letters, boycotting the news channel, and we'd march on those organizations.

There is no reason for the media to treat Hispanics so shabbily. Why should Hispanics, Puerto Ricans in particular, be subject to this level of uncritical scorn? If the country showed progress when they elected Barack Obama, it shows need for growth in the manner that the media thinks it ought to treat nonBlack minorities. The bigotry shown against Arabs and Muslims would be point #2.

[EugeneStovall]

Conservative European-Americans frame their political ideas as if their cultural values are the standard by which all others should be judged. This is evidenced by the picture of the 1935 Supreme Court posted in a New York newspaper where Justice Van Demanter is wearing his Ku Klux Klan robes with the obvious approval of his fellow justices. This is the "ideal" Supreme Court to which Republican spokesmen like Limbaugh refer. That court interpreted the law the way European-Americans expect it to be interpreted.

[RitaLouise]

What is sadly neglected is the REST of that infamous quote. I have only seen it once in all the text I have read, and here it is:

"Of course, right after the targeted quote, she went on to say 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.” That sentence never gets quoted." This was submitted by Rod Watson of the Buffalo News. Good Job, Rod!

All the "journalists" including NPR (alas! seemingly going in the direction of sensationalism) leaves out the rest of the quote. This is notably an omission that seems to sell and inflame, but does not give me respect for the media!

[Hansharriet]

I don't understand this discussion of the Supreme Court nominee. It is a done thing. It's just that the news media is bought off by the advertising Lobby which keeps blowing up that Sotomayor thing to occupy the mind of the public. The reason for that is clear: They don't want the Single Payer Healthcare issue, the continuation of the Bush war policy and the Gitmo crimes on the front pages and news reports
WAKE UP, AMERICA, don't let them fool you! Keep pushing Obama in the right direction! Remember, he said to us: Make me do it! Let's force him to live up to his campaign promises. Let us stop him from giving billions to the banks and corporations and then hear his top advisors and Bernanke tell us that we have to reform and cut Medicare and Social Security, because of necessary Budget Cuts.
If we have to cut the budget, take the money from the Banks, AIG and GM and pull out of Iraq and reduce forces in Afghanistan.
They tell us that the economy is turning around? Hogwash! The economy will turn around, when unemployment goes down to 4% or less.

[Ronald Reagan]

You guys sure have humorously selective memories. Remember Miguel Estrada? No, of course you don't.

I won't repost all the details here, except to say that the "evil" fox news has a great article about it at the following link... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77076,00.html

[SJBrown]

white politicians and pundits pretend their race and culture have no impact on their sensibilities..."

Why would the majority necessarily have a racial perspective? Power is enough.
--------
Seeing Hispanics subjected to a level of callousness that likely would not be tolerated against black people..."

Where have you been the last 3 years? Just Google Barack Obama's name and remind yourself what is tolerated.

Hispanic and Latina aren't races. And guess what? There are black Hispanics and Latinas. Shock!

[Juanx]

Eric,

Indulge me for a moment...Seems like the Civil Rights Movement and Voting Rights Act are the real underpinnings holding America together in these Conservative times. Each time a minority group hits a wall in becoming a main stream American they trot out these instances to gain a modicum of respect.

Never in the history of America has the Conservatives been in a place where their core dollar values are being examined, and they are frightened to death. This is where the focus should be. Integration has not happened in the way the KKK expressed and acted upon...the access to financial well being for Conservatives is an unwelcome, [shared word codes among the media messengers], and an intrusive reality.

Engage more reporters to examine the spread of wealth, and there will be much to debate, and hopefully clear the air.

"It’s the money stpd"...to paraphrase Bill Clinton.

[montyc]

i may have the answer. Although by race she is latina in her words, she is actually an American citizen , her parents moved from Puerto Rico which is American and all citizens of Puerto Rico are Americans.
Puerto Ricans do not like being lumped in with Mexicans. In work environment Puerto Ricans are the boss and Mexicans are the labor. they are very proud to be Americans, she has that Puerto Rican elitest mentality. She seems fine to me, very normal. She will never connect with the hispanics of other nationalities. She may reach out to them, but they wont reach out to her. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but her writings are very tipical of proud American Puerto Ricans thought.

[Pleneras]

There is no race called Latina, a spanish word and popular term which was originally use for music like the term SOUL. She is a very light skinned woman who is not accepted by the so-called white people of this country as white because of her ethnicity. Now imagine a black puerto rican? Is he of the same race to you if your following the races one drop rule? There is no such thing as race only human race, but there are ethnic differences. PR's don't like being lumped with Mexicans as one nation. Imagine saying England, Scotland and Ireland are the same people?

Hispanics are nothing more than various shades of people and ethnicities whose countries was under Spanish rule Spanish dominated the language. Many of those people come from Europe, Asia and Africa, and the same in the USA. When you use the term incorrectly you give others who don't know jack the power to tell you who you are/and are not. The frivolous racist rule you are black if you have one drop of blood is made up by racist men. This doesn't mean it's correct or scientifically correct. Why make a lie a factual lie? Obama is visually part black when you compare him to Africans. His phenotype is similar to the millions of mixed african-americans but his ethnicity is not African American since his both his parents are not Black Americans. His ethnicity is half Irish/english and half african.

[mule66]

We are we're called white people

[bccmeteorites]

With all due respect Cartagena. It's not that there are no names in the Rolodex. The problem is that if they have an issues discussion over such socially loaded subjects they have to stay a predetermined course and allowing the affected to join the discussion may derail myths and stereotypes. Which of course results in sucking the air out of their sails and ultimately sinking their ships. This would not make for a good entertaining show which meets the expectations of their market audience.

[jjaylad]

"Why does the term 'identity politics' only surface when people of color voice their concerns about stereotyping and institutional bias?"

What a great point. It's important to not ever lightly employ terms such as "identity politics"-one of many terms reflective of looming minority (and other marginalized) "threats" in mainstream americans' subconscious schemas-as they always are over time. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which people are just starting to question the media, let alone the world of academia that feeds the educated journalist's or politician's tongue.

[flow555]

Thanks, you put into words, a point that was bothering me too -- that many white people, who have never experienced racism, don't understand how THAT experience shapes them and their worldview. Regardless, a justice on the highest court should have the intellectual prowess to step outside their own worldview and examine legal issues from a higher plane anyway. Unlike the pundits and politicans on TV, who apparently step down into the mud before making their blathering arguements.

[Chiqui Cartagena]

AMEN Eric. I have been appalled at how few Hispanic voices have been included in the on-air debate and have come to the sad conclusion that news bookers for any show, from FOX to CNN simply don't have contacts of Hispanic journalists/pundits in their rolodex. CNN, has basically two Latinos that they put on all the time Leslie Sanchez and Alex Castellanos, both of whom are repulbican. When the vast majority of Latinos are, in fact, Democrats. I'm a journalist with over 20 years of experience in Hispanic media. I also am the author of the book Latino Boom and speak frequently about Latino issues around the country and yet I'm invisible to these people. I even watched my favorite show, Rachael Maddow cover this story and to my great distress, not a Latino voice.

The other voice of Latinos is not represented on TV because journalists are LAZY and don't bother get to know people who are experts on the issues and can speak intelligently about Laitno issues, like me. I was intervewed at length on Sotomayor last Monday by Spanish-language TV, but can't for the life of me get through to any network news bookers....they must have run out of rolodex cards.