Can White Men Shed Their Prejudices Better Than Others?
Conservatives are in a tizzy over the prospect that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may allow her race, sex, or background to affect her judgment if confirmed to the Supreme Court. The back and forth between Sotomayor and GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was a case in point. Sotomayor, Sessions gleefully pointed out, once said she could "accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices, and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision."
To which Sen. Sessions asked, "Do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision-making?"
Sotomayor said no: "What I was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome. Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots who listen to evidence and don't have feelings. We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside."
Sessions' concern was whether Sotomayor believed she could ever fully put aside her own feelings in order to apply the law impartially. "Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to influence your decision-making?" he wanted to know. "How can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?"
Sotomayor's wise Latina response was, "I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experience are driving a result and the law is not."
Sessions was unmoved: "So you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making?" Sotomayor: "Well, as I have tried to explain, what I try to do is to ensure that they're not. If I ignore them and believe that I'm acting without them, without looking at them and testing that I'm not, then I could, unconsciously or otherwise, be led to be doing the exact thing I don't want to do, which is to let something other than the law command the result."
This is precisely the value of diversity: It can take people who are not living in the bubble of prosperous white male privilege to recognize how the markings of their identity may shape their actions. To ignore the real ways that our experiences, background, ambitions, and emotions affect us is a recipe for the destructive unconscious behavior -- discrimination, hypocrisy, dishonesty, infidelity -- that so many powerful white men engage in (especially, it seems, politicians). Too many of them live their lives in an emotional closet of which they know not.
The whole show between Sessions and Sotomayor was, of course, a trap. And it was tinged with the destructive cluelessness of white male privilege. The implication of Sessions' inquisition was that, as a white male with no distinguishing "heritage" to speak of, he and his ilk can make judgments totally free of feelings, belief, or experience, that they are not prone to ever make a judgment that could be clouded by who they are. A Latina woman, however, is a dangerous addition to the Court because her "difference" could shape her judgment.
In fairness, it was Sotomayor's comments on the topic, not her race and sex per se, that prompted the grilling. But the sloppy thinking behind the questions is clear: It's as though genteel white men are the primal mold of the fair and impartial human being, and any mark of racial, gender or class difference from that mold is a fall from the archetype. An "alternative" brain like this, it would seem, threatens to produce a "different" judgment, which, to fearful white men, means partial, incorrect, and not in their favor.
Sotomayor, of course, is absolutely right, and Sessions, as a lawyer, should know it. As the nominee points out, "there are situations in which some experiences are important in the process of judging, because the law asks us to use those experiences." The language of statute, and of legal concepts and precedents, is full of words that ask the people of each generation to apply the law in light of their time and place. This is why laws speak of a "reasonable person," a "rational basis," and a "compelling state interest" -- what is reasonable, rational or compelling to one person in one time and place will be totally different in another, and to someone else. And that's by design.
Does Sen. Sessions really think the group of white male judges who, in 1896, ruled that racial segregation was Constitutional, were free of bias? Does he think they made that reprehensible decision because they were just a few bad apples in an otherwise morally flawless era? Absurd. They were products of their time. And their sympathies, beliefs and prejudices shaped their decision then, just as happens now.
And does Sen. Sessions really think that Justice Antonin Scalia would have insisted that there is no fundamental right to homosexual sex, and that the ban on sodomy was "rationally related to a legitimate state interest" if that judge had been gay, known gays, or grown up in Cambridge or San Francisco? (Ok, the latter is no guarantee.) In an amazing story, Justice Lewis Powell, who cast the deciding vote in that notorious 1986 case upholding anti-gay sodomy bans, told a respected law clerk that he'd never known a gay person. The clerk was gay. Had he come out -- instantly re-shaping Powell's life experience -- history could have been very different. Indeed, some years later, Powell said he "may have made a mistake on that one."
At times, Sotomayor fell for Sessions' trap, saying she of course did not believe her own feelings ever shaped her judgment: "My record shows that at no point or time have I ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case." Hogwash. As you wisely pointed out, Judge Sotomayor, experience shapes position, and the workings of the human mind are often unconscious; thus the "record" would never show how your personal sympathies affected a case. The point, as you started to say, is to accept that different positions can result from different experience, to try to keep your emotions in check when you interpret the law, but to recognize that no one can ever fully shed his or her passions as a judge or a human being.
Keep telling the truth, Judge Sotomayor, and throw that truth back in the faces of your white male inquisitors: Tell them their whiteness and maleness do not exempt them from the beliefs, emotions, and, yes, prejudices (Lord knows, prejudices) we all bear, this blend of messy ingredients that, for better and for worse, constitute the human condition.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Lots of white men don't consider any woman their equal .. so why are we shocked and surprised at the way they are treating her?
They still haven't gotten over any woman having any rights.
Someday maybe they will recover. Let's hope it is soon.
She said she would HOPE a Latina would make a better decision not that they would.
Why is the word hope left out of this discussion by the Senators? I think that word changes the whole meaning of what she said.
The whole concept of these hearings is getting ridiculous. Both parties use them for political posturing.
Since the odds of her being confirmed are so high, I am truly perplexed at how these accusations of racism being thrown at her all day every day helps the Republicans.
The idea that Sessions, the poster boy for racism in the Senate, is allowed to question anyone about racism is absurd.
It will be interesting to see what Ricci has to say when he testifies. I can't believe he is actually testifying against her. I think this whole case is ridiculous. Fire departments are notorious for being White, Irish and Catholic.
Not one African American, on this blogg has blamed a white person for where they are in life but everyone want and should be treated equally and there is injustice when it comes to incarcerations for blacks and latino's and thats a fact.. We in america need to be real, their are differences and that is a fact. I don't care who taught you mostly, we all need to know how to interact with each other because there are differences, none of us whether black, white, hispanic, asian, indian were all raised the same. America, is made up of many nationalities, who contributed to this country but in the history books one would not know this, I had to take African American history to find out about what actually black people contributed as well as had to take Native american History to find out about ourAmerican Indians if you just read the American History books you will not find out about the blacks, Indians in that book. I am 40 years old and growing up looking at the movies I thought the American Indian were the enemy until I got educated and learned what actually happened. When you strip someone of their ability to think and to deprogram them to think as you want them to, you have taken their ability to function
Whites have had the privilege of education in this country for far longer than blacks. It is astounding to me that you choose to ignore this fact. Brown vs Board of Education. Read it sometime.
I admit to being a white male. In fact I admit to being educated in mostly white schools, by white teachers who for the most part were not educated in the proper education system of both coasts.
That setting the basis of my statement, I suggest that the idea of racial problems does not lie with the mostly white people in this country nor with those who have come from Mexico or Latin America. The race issue is a black issue.
The single right that this nation gives every person is a chance....for a better job, education and growth. If an individual or group refuses the challenge of that chance, then it is that individual or groups problem.
Stop blaming White America for the choices you made that led you to today!
I do not believe that any person can be free from what they were taught when young. No matter how high they may climb in life or their choosen profession they will slant the truth as they see it by what they were taught and brought up as a child. To say different is a lie. I will state again that the single right given to each American is the right to try and to fail, over and over again. The rest is window dressing. If it is inside you to become more you will, if not you will wine and cry that someone, race or religion has held you down.
middleamerican2010
Casey
Were blacks afforded equal education from the moment they arrived as slaves? No.. You can't erase history. You can try but you cannot do it.
Neither were immigrants afforded equal opportunity when they arrived as late as the early 20th century. Let us not forget the disadvantages immigrants had, "white" immigrants (as you mention in you later comment). My great-grandfather, an illiterate, Italian immigrant had to work his way to his success. He was not "educated". He memorized maps so as to function as a truck driver. His story proves to me that hard work can overcome adversity in America, to some degree. The timetable of his arrival in the early 20th century and the progression of black education (though still separate and unequal at this point) coincide. I am not suggesting the disadvantages were necessarily similar or equal; however, many whites have backgrounds of recent adversity. The fact that some people in society still feel the need to make up for history and correct the wrongs with handouts to specific ethnic groups is mind-boggling to me. Why do people keep generalizing whites as a unified, privileged, ethnic group? The act of racial classification (in today's world) only serves to stagnate progress in race relations. We, as a nation, must reach past these superficial boundaries to continue down the path that the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action (a necessary measure at the time) has lead. Though William's rant on equality of opportunity not of outcome may be loosely and insensitively worded, but the sentiment is in many ways accurate (in my opinion).
I'd like to point out a major historical accuracy in this article. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision was 7-1 with one judge abstaining and another dissenting. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion was written by a white male judge coming from a slaveholding family in Kentucky. While this small error may seem ostensibly insignificant, it only serves to reveal to deep, anti-white, anti-male bias shaping this article's perspective. I will readily admit racial relations are not perfect in America (and probably never will be). However, I find the author's flippant use of terms such as "white male" and attribution this self-proclaimed demonic quality as the cause of all negative race relations in America is unfair. In fact, it is attitudes such as this that further the racial and political divide in America. I urge readers to see through this inaccurate representation of the facts, flip on CSPAN, and make your own judgments on the hearings. Sen. Sessions could easily be portrayed as too harsh, but portraying him as a supporter of Plessy v. Ferguson is ludicrous.
P.S. When speaking of diversity, why do we lump white male into a category? There is not a unique "white male" heritage because that includes Irish, English, German, ... Seems kind of ridiculous in today's world to place people into strictly defined racial categories anyway.
It sure does. That's why it seems kind of ridiculous for Sessions to ask why she didn't vote like the "other Puerto Rican judge" as though in their shared "strictly defined racial category" everyone would have exaclty the same opinions.
If you look at the context of this comment (which as I've seen thus far Huffington reporters themselves do not), I think Sessions was trying to adopt the language of Sotomayor's "wise, Latina woman" comment. His question was based on the fact that her "background affects the facts that you choose to see" (his paraphrasing of what she said). Therefore, I think he was in fact asking how nationality plays such a role if they came to different conclusions and why it did not lead her to consider the act discrimination in the case. In fact, this comment plays on the ludicrousness of imposing strict ethnic categories. Can we please be more honest when throwing around quotations from the hearings (both in content and context)?
Correction: inaccuracy. Apologies.
Sessions seems to be doing the imperialist mantra: we the white guys can enforce rules on everyone else but no one can set rules on us. End of story.
Here, here, lisakaz2, you got it correct, thats exactly what their meaning.
First, you have old men drilling a Judge, about a comment she made about 9 years ago but in all reality, we know that people will say what they think others want to hear it's nothing new, america is guilty of it. Judge Sotomayor, aint hardly prejudice, but clearly america lead the way in prejudice and it is still alive. America the beautiful has laws in place but still their not enforced fairly, case in point I've said, this many times on the blogg, in the african american community and the hispanic community most times crack cocaine is sold and in the white community most times cocaine is sold, but if the african american or hispanic are caught selling crack they will probably do 15years but if a white person is caught selling cocaine he or she will get half of that sentence, that the black or latino gets aqnd that is a known (fact) now tell flavor (who) came up with an unfair practice as that, same drug, same affect, one is just cooked. I can bet you this not one black or hispanic finger wrote that injustice, now you want to drill, drill that and be fair. Since we are the land of the brave and free, let us be the land of the fair. Impossible.
Personally, I think the reason conservatives hate everyone else is cultural jealousy. It seems that the more cultured a group is, the more they hate them- likely a reason they specifically target "liberals" for their wrath.
I suspect the real emotion is fear: the make-believe world of the 1950s (which never really existed anyway) was a world in which WASP white men were, as the author notes, "the primal mold" and as such determined the standards for everything. Of course any other group - women, minorities, gays, Jews, etc. - could never measure up, and were by definition considered second-class. Those days are rapidly disappearing, and the result is fear. Who wants to give up power and authority? But fear and rage are the result when one group's power is being eaten away.
Exactly, that is very well said. As a baby boomer you describe exactly the world I grew up in....I remember being discriminated against as a kid because I was a Catholic and remember the attacks against Kennedy over that when he ran for President.
There is still a part of this country has not let go of those bad ideas from the 50's, m own kids don't have those ridiculous ideas...but too many of my fellow baby boomers are embarassng to me with their ugly ideas and need to keep those upity minorities down. It's time to stop the insanity !
If I were in Sonia's eminent position getting grilled with the same tired, useless questions from someone of Sessions' ilk, I'd be very tempted to ask him pointblank if a wise old former Ku Klux Klan sympathizer can or should reach a better decision as a prosecutor or judge than a Latina woman. The Senate rules need to be radically changed to prevent future incidents in which blatant conflicts of interest prevail among the Committee members with the power to interrogate panelists about issues for which the Senators themselves are in no position to challenge. Such Senators should be legally required to recuse themselves from participation in such inquiries. For Jeff Sessions of all people to repeatedly question Sotomayor on her acknowledgement of the reality of human experience is the epitomy of ludicrous hypocrisy. This situation is akin to Dick Cheney, with his 5 draft deferrals during the Vietnam War, interrogating John Kerry on his military record in that war. When will the Republicans ever learn what happens to people throwing stones while living in glass houses? The consequences for such people are never a pretty sight.
I would like to point you towards research on Clarence Thomas' appointment hearings. While I'm sure your commentary comes from extensive research and objective, reflective thought, it may enlighten you (especially If you are going to coin this type of "abusive" questioning as "Republican"). By your standard many current sitting Democratic Senators would have been "legally required to recuse themselves from participation".
In the immortal words of Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill, preceding his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, "There's a pubic hair in my Coke!" I never used the word "abusive" in my reference to the repetitive questions asked of Sotomayor by the same predictable Republicans, but these questions were amazingly abusive nonetheless. Aside from Sessions' shameless hypocrisy, Lindsay Graham exposed his own foot-in-mouth disease by subjecting her to a character assassination via anonymous critics of her personality simply because they don't appreciate being challenged as comes with the territory of a trial attorney. She should be commended for handling their ridiculous attacks like a trooper who needed no bulletproof vest for self-protection. She deflected their interrogation like it was yesterday's news. More power to Sonia for her profound professionalism.
Hypocrisy is what Republicans do best.
so are there sympathies, prejudices, and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision as Sotomayor said or are judges expected to put those sympathies, pregudices and optinions aside as Sotomayor also said?
Yes Sotomayor is backpeddling, because its easier to tell her questioners a half truth, than to have them misconstrue what she is actually saying.
No one can escape their heritage and their life experiences, as these are a large part of the equation of what make up our identity. Rich or Poor, Black or White, these backgrounds of course help shape how we see the world. Acknowledging the reality that no one truly can put aside their experiences, and indeed that our experiences give us context from which to judge, does not make you a bad judge, it makes you human. Does being a right wing marine effect your perspective on things?
Thank you Jules. You may not care, but you represent the most rational and calm liberal I have thus far encountered on Huffington.
Please do not portray this as sarcastic (I'm sure it sounds as such). I sincerely thank you and urge you to continue doing what you are doing (and please, for the country's sake, try to impart this sort of attitude on your ideological brethren).
Agreed 100%
You are so right. The idea that anyone can put aside their beliefs and background and experiences in life is a bit absurd to me. We all make decisions everyday in life that reflect everything we've learned up until now.
The law is never black and white. Everyone makes their interpretations of the law. So, I am not sure what the real fight is about other than pure political posturing. I am not sure what the Republicans really hope to gain from it. Exposing their racism won't win them any national elections.
Extremely well said.
There is a strong tendency to believe that the "conventional" perspective is perfectly neutral and universal, and that every deviation from it is an special case in social or ethnic terms. Members of the Senate easily fall prey to this kind of thinking, although the same phenomenon is at the core of the US perspective on the rest of the world, which is why the US is so blind to its own hypocrisy, and even for the Anglo-Saxon world as a whole.
"Does Sen. Sessions really think the group of white male judges who, in 1896, ruled that racial segregation was Constitutional, were free of bias?"
I'm quite sure he thinks this. Remember who you're talking about. As I'm sure only his God--and his most trusted GOP pals--know, Sessions believes that ruling was correct.
Thanks for the great article, Mr. Frank.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
Thank you. The mind set of racial superiority due to white pigment over brown-beige-black pigment on other humans boggles my mind. Stupid is stupid, dumb is dumb, ignorant is ignorant and hate is hate. We Americans still have so very far to go when it comes to the white male power establishment getting over their collective beliefs of racial superiority. One day we all die, no matter what color. Or political party. Our world has racist problems. Duh, huh?
So you are v. white men, regardless.........It was an ALL-white man jury that ruled in Brown v. Bd. of Education. It was white men who gave us most if not all of about all of the amendments in the constitution.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
