Fox's Kelly, ABC's Greenburg skew Sotomayor remark about "Latina," "white male" judges
SUMMARY: Megyn Kelly and Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Sonia Sotomayor made in a speech published in 2002, claiming that Sotomayor suggested, in Kelly's words, "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges."
Fox News host Megyn Kelly and ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, made in a speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, claiming that she suggested, in Kelly's words, "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, "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," she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. As Media Matters for America has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.
During the May 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Kelly described Sotomayor's remarks as "reverse racism" and said it was "[l]ike she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." Kelly later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it wasn't." Similarly, in a May 26 report on ABC's Good Morning America, Greenburg claimed that Sotomayor "suggest[ed] that a wise Latino may actually be a better judge than a white man, and that white men have had some attitude adjustments and reached moments of great enlightenment, but there's a long way to go."
Contrary to Kelly and Greenburg's claims, Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are "better" than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about "race and sex discrimination cases." From Sotomayor's speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
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.
From the May 26 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
GREENBURG: Judge Sotomayor, obviously, is a highly regarded federal appeals court judge. But some of Obama's legal advisers had been concerned that she was not as collegial on that federal appeals court bench, and therefore may be less effective once she gets on the high court in building some of those coalitions with the group of eight other colleagues.
But, Diane, from the beginning, this nomination was Sonia Sotomayor's to lose. President Obama's political advisers had urged him to tap her, to make this historic pick. They calculated that it would be the savviest move for this new president, hoping to avoid a big Supreme Court fight.
Republicans will have a very difficult time opposing her as this historic pick, although there will be a lot to work with in her record, including a pretty controversial speech that she gave back in late 2001, which she suggests that a wise Latino may actually be a better judge than a white man, and that white men have had some attitude adjustments and reached moments of great enlightenment, but there's a long way to go.
DIANE SAWYER (host): All right, let's go to Jon Karl, because on that front, as we were saying, every Republican has a pen and pencil out this morning. Let's go up to Capitol Hill. Jon, what are you hearing about the first move the Republicans plan to make, and what are they saying on the Democratic side about the ease -- or not -- of confirmation?
From the May 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Your thoughts on this controversial quote that she offered up on Latina judges? This was Judge Sotomayor speaking back at the University of Berkeley Law School in 2001, and I'll read you what she said and ask if you are able to put this in perspective for us.
She says, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male, who has not lived that life." You know, that sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that's her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court.
REP. JOSE SERRANO [D-NY]: Right. And like I said, we're gonna hang on everything she's ever said -- if she has said them. I think the key there is, "I would hope," just like I have said at times throughout my life that when you come with this background that I came, that I would hope I would be always true to believing when I legislate in Congress -- and I've been in Congress 20 years, and in the state Assembly 16 years before that -- that I would keep in mind that while I'm legislating for the whole country, I also have to keep in mind what it is that I bring to that legislation. My personal experience and how it is to fight yourself out of poverty. All she was saying is --
KELLY: But is there a role for that on the bench? It's different, some would argue, for you, because you're an elected lawmaker.
SERRANO: Well, there is a role in that you never forget who you are. I mean, she has made decisions based on what the law is and what the Constitution says. That's what she'll be doing.
[...]
KELLY: What I want to ask you about, Tim [O'Brien], is these prior statements, because as much of a moment as we may be having now watching this and just rooting for her as a human being, there are some problematic statements that she's made in the past that are gonna come up at these confirmation hearings. And the one we've been talking about is this one where she says -- and I want to get it right: "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."
And I -- now I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you, Tim, it wasn't. In fact, she goes on -- she says, "Justice O'Connor has often been cited" -- that was our first female justice -- "has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."
She says, "I'm not so sure I agree with that statement." And then she goes on to say that "people from different backgrounds will come to different decisions" and she said that "one must accept the proposition that a difference will be created by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and their personal experiences." Now, is that just a statement of fact, Tim, or is that in fact controversial?
Gotta love the way liberals can accuse Yoo of being a criminal in one instance and then use him as a defender of their nominee without blinking an eye or skipping beat.
Gotta love it.
I don't see anywhere that the MMFA article uses Yoo "as a defender of their nominee." The only use of Yoo is a tool to expose hypocrisy by conservative media in their efforts to smear Sotomayor. And they do so quite effectively.
Can you point out where Yoo is quoted as a defender of Sotomayor? Or are you simply wrong again.
MMFA is simply pointing out that similar statements by YooHoo about Thomas were not considered controversial by the Republicans.
Hypocrisy, as you point out.
In this case however, I would rather MMFA didn't rely on the "they did it too" argument.
If you read the speech this is Fox SOP - taking a quote out of context and trying to spin it into a sub-text (i.e., she's a racist).
Another day, another vapid Fox anchor projecting the talking point du Jour for the 20%'ers to lap up. Yawn.
"I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male." -Sonia Sotomeyer
Sotomayer said what she said. She should not have said it. Let's reverse the quote now:
"I would hope a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black woman." -John McPain
Sotomayor was talking specifically and avowedly about judgment in cases of racial and sexual discrimination. She was saying that she would hope that a wise person who had experience of such discrimination would "more often than not" reach a better conclusion than one who hadn't.
So if you'd care to cite an example of an area where the quote of "John McPain" would apply, where white men are and have been the targets of discrimination in a way that others would be less likely to be able to understand, please do and it can be considered. Otherwise, otherwise.
I am crushed by the weight of your irrefutable logic.
(I was going to add "/sarcasm" but if you'd need that to understand, you're even further gone than I thought.)
You really should make an attempt to explain how someone is wrong if you're going to assert it. To just say "no" without establishing your point comes off as childish.
"Sotomayor was talking specifically and avowedly about judgment in cases of racial and sexual discrimination. She was saying that she would hope that a wise person who had experience of such discrimination would "more often than not" reach a better conclusion than one who hadn't."
This is, explicitly, stating that someone who hasn't been discriminated against, who isn't a minority, is unable to make as good of decisions as someone who has been discriminated against, who is a minority.
It is a racist statement. It is exactly the same as if I said that someone who was a minority would be worse than a white male at making such decisions because the white male, never having been discriminated against themselves, would be objective while the minority member would emotionally react and immediately side with whoever claimed to be discriminated against, regardless of whether or not discrimination had actually occurred.
And that is precisely what is happening here. She is a racist, and she makes bad decisions. She sided with the minorities not because they were RIGHT, but because they were MINORITIES.
She is, simply put, racist. I'm sorry, them's the breaks.
You cannot say that her statement wasn't racist in nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it isnt. Saying in general someone who has experience is something will do it better than someone without that experience is NOT saying the one without experience cannot do it. Especially since she followed it with THIS
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.
And THIS
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.
It was NOT racist because you are stuck in that simpleminded all black all white Manichean mindset. It WASNT racist THOSE are the breaks and I can ABSOLUTLY say it wasnt racist for the simplest of reasons...IT WASNT
I read the quote and didn't hear what you heard. I heard a racist statement that, if made by anyone else, not of a minority persuasion, would be jumped on in a heartbeat. I think she has some explaining to do on that statement. She also needs to explain the one where she acknowledges that policy is made in appellate courts. That one tells me that she decides the case and then goes and tries to justify in the law. She has some explaining to do there also.
"I heard a racist statement that, if made by anyone else, not of a minority persuasion, would be jumped on in a heartbeat."
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that Larry is talking about. The statement was not made by, say, a white male. Neither was it a general statement, it was specific to certain cases regarding discrimination against race and gender. So "it would be racist if..." does not translate to "it's racist". The circumstances change that dramatically.
"She also needs to explain the one where she acknowledges that policy is made in appellate courts."
If she's acknowledging something, then isn't she stating the truth? I'm not sure how that's supposed to lead you to believe anything, since the alternative is to deny that policy is made in appellate courts. That wouldn't change the reality that policy is made there. You have to know that your argument is weak when she specifically said she doesn't advocate making policy that way, and you see some need for her to clarify something as if she might be advocating it.
If these are really the best objections to her nomination out there, she might as well already be confirmed.
John Adams promoted a government of law, not of men, meaning that cases should be decided according to the law, not the parties in court--including the plaintiff, the defendant, _and the judge._ Rich white man or poor Hispanic woman, all should receive equal treatment under the law. Barack Obama sees it otherwise, and has found a Supreme Court nominee who agrees with him.
Some of you argue that the comment was taken out of context, but a fair reading of the speech shows that her words mean exactly what they say: a white male won't make as good a decision as a Latina woman. How is that not racism?
And why is this acceptable? What would happen to a Supreme Court nominee who said the reverse: that a Latina woman can't make as good a decision as a white male? How can thoughtful people possibly accept Affirmative Action as the basis for legal decisions in the highest court in the land?
This isn't the only time Sotomayor has shown her bias and her activist intent. In a 2005 panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, she explained that the difference in the experiences of working at district versus an appeals courts was that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.”
Our democratic republic was designed so that legislation comes from the legislative body, not from the judicial bench. Judicial activism takes the court out of the business of law and into the business of shaping society according to the view of the judges--judges who are appointed, not elected; who are not responsible to the people they judge since they never run for re-election nor can be voted out of office; and in the case of Supreme Court Justices, have no higher authority to question their decisions except the legislative branch, who must pass laws to counteract bad judicial decisions.
Judge Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the Court. It is likely that George Bush would have appointed the first Hispanic justice in the person of Miguel Estrada, had the Democrats not blocked him for 28 months using seven filibusters, because he interprets the Constitution as our founders wrote it, not as today's society might want to revise it.
Further, Judge Sotomayor's record on the bench is not even clean, her decisions having been overturned many times on appeal. Ironically, one of her poor decisions is on the docket right now, likely to be reversed by the very court she's being appointed to. But her bad record is not likely to affect her nomination. Because of the large Democrat majority in the Senate, conservatives don't have the votes to filibuster her as the Democrats did Estrada. Unless Republican Senators are exceptionally persuasive, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and will affect our society for decades to come on the bench, and thereafter as long as her changes to the workings of our society remain in the body of law.
This is a sad day for the U.S. and a sad day for the Constitution. Just as sad is that so many of you cannot see the truth through your own prejudices.
Again, you can't reverse it to say "a Latina woman can't make as good a decision as a white male?". This was specifically addressed in my post. It wasn't a general statement, it was regarding cases of discrimination. How the hell is that racist to say? I have yet to see any legitimate argument to that end, only people making the empty assertion of racism.
And regarding the "activism", her comments on policy are not particularly controversial and she did not advocate making policy that way. It was a simple statement of fact as to the nature of the system.
If she's had more decisions overturned than should be normally expected under these circumstances, then that should be a factor. But don't throw that other garbage at me as if it hadn't already been addressed.
"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."
Changes everything, doesn't it? Nothing like a little cherrypicking to make a phony right wing point.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.
by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.
by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.
She EXPLICITLY contradicts the notion that gender and nationality have nothing to do with your decisions. She EXPLICITLY made that distinction. That was the entire point of that paragraph.
For once, Fox was ENTIRELY justified in saying that, in fact, it was a racist remark, because it very much was. She was, indeed, saying exactly what they said she was saying - that a female latino judge would make a better decision in a case than a white male. That is racist. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
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.
That hardly sounds racist to me.
I hear conservatives constantly complaining about legislating from the bench but when the case doesn't go their way because of the law conservatives scream. Another instance of this was the eminent domain case where the majority of justices followed the plain meaning of the constitution and conservatives were aghast.
She was. The statement is, nonetheless, racist. She's explicitly saying that in at least a subset of cases, she thinks that a Latina woman would categorically make better decisions than a white man. There's a subtle conflation of the related (but distinct) ideas of discrimination-based-on-experience (usually considered acceptable) and discrimination-based-on-sex-and/or-race (usually not).
If Sotomayor had said, "A person who has been the victim of racial or sex discrimination would more often than not reach a better conclusion than someone who hasn't," then she's making a debatable, although non-racist point. But she didn't say that: she said that she thought Latina women categorically would make better decisions than white men. Put this in a different context, and the distinction becomes obvious:
1. "A person who has taken a lot of mathematics courses in his or her life will tend to solve physics problems better than white men who haven't."
2. "Latina women with the richness of their experiences will tend to solve physics problems better than white men."
What's wrong with this second claim? The main problem is that it implies that Latina women have all had a lot of mathematics courses, and white men haven't. This clearly is not categorically true, but the second argument implies that it is. This is why it is racist, and the first argument is not.
To be more precise: the only way her statement is not racist is if 'wise Latina women' is a subset of 'people who have experienced racial or sex discrimination' and 'white males' have zero overlap with 'people who have experienced racial or sex discrimination.' I think it's pretty clear neither of these conditions is true. Her claim was racist. It stinks, but there it is.
Utter and complete nonsense that demonstrates a conscious intention to ignore the record. The very quote you cite says she "would hope" that a "wise" Latina woman would "more often than not" make a better decision in cases related to sex and race discrimination than someone who had not had the same sort of experiences.
Turning that into her "explicitly" making a "categorical" judgment is legerdemain, not logic.
Ultimately, what her statement comes down to is that someone who has actually experienced discrimination in their life, if they are wise, should be (i.e., you would "hope that" they are) able to judge cases relating to that - including determining the facts as to whether or not something is discrimination - better than someone who hasn't. That is, bluntly, a simple truism.
Another simple truism is that you can comfortably say that a Latina woman is far more likely to have experienced discrimination than a white man.
With that in mind, consider your statement #2, the one you insist is racist. That's so, you say, because "it implies that Latina women have all had a lot of mathematics courses, and white men haven't." But what if it was a fact, a truism, that Latina women had taken a lot more mathematics courses than white men? The claimed "racism" disappears and it becomes no more "racist" than your statement #1.
Since it can, again, be safely asserted that Latina women have had far more experience of racism and sexism than white men, that is, far more relevant experience on which to draw, your entire argument is rot, designed merely to parrot whatever the rightwing meme of the day is.
Turning that into her "explicitly" making a "categorical" judgment is legerdemain, not logic.
Are you serious? Her claim is that, based on belonging to a certain group (i.e., categorically), a person is likely to be a better judge of these cases. That is about as an explicit, categorical statement as you can make.
Ultimately, what her statement comes down to is that someone who has actually experienced discrimination in their life, if they are wise, should be (i.e., you would "hope that" they are) able to judge cases relating to that - including determining the facts as to whether or not something is discrimination - better than someone who hasn't. That is, bluntly, a simple truism.
This is what I referred to somewhat long-windedly as discrimination-based-on-experience. I would not say this is a truism, and it's arguable that first-hand experience of this nature has the opposite effect, by compromising the judge's objectivity. However, true or not, this claim is not racist, per se. The trouble is that this idea is being conflated with race-based discrimination. You (properly, in my view) distinguish the issues in your following claim:
Another simple truism is that you can comfortably say that a Latina woman is far more likely to have experienced discrimination than a white man.
I disagree, and I think the issue is a lot more complicated than this claim suggests. For example, 'having experienced discrimination' is framed here as boolean: either you have or you haven't. Okay, so what percentage of white men have been employed or gone to college at some point in their lives at a place that followed affirmative action policies? It's not 100%, but it's very high. What percentage of blacks alive today have been physically assaulted because of their race? A much lower percentage. Does this mean that white men have more experience with discrimination than blacks? Obviously not, and the problem is that you're using a bad metric. It's not even clear to me that you can meaningfully quantify experiences like this. I suspect if you tried, you'd find that, indeed, on average, Latina women have experienced more discrimination than white men, but the distribution would be spread quite broadly in both cases, and there would be a lot of overlap. But that's just conjecture.
We could argue about this, but the point is, your claim is not self-evident (i.e., a truism, although I concede that it may be true, depending on what metric you're using, but that's quite different than being a truism). It is also, however, not racist. What is racist is the following logic:
1. First-hand experience of racism is likely to make a person a better judge of cases involving racism.
2. Latina women are more likely to have experienced racism than white men.
3. Therefore, Latina women are likely to be better judges of these cases than white men.
The third argument is racist because it's a claim that one race/sex group is categorically better at something than another. We're at risk of debating semantics here, so let me add that my understanding of the term 'racist' only includes unjustified claims of this nature. (I think many people would claim that the term includes even justified claims that are not self-evidently obvious, i.e. truisms.) I disagree with claim 1, and think that claim 2 is not a precise enough statement to take a position on.
I'd also like to further drive home the point that implying claim 3 by conflation automatically makes the claim unjustified. I think it's a racist argument even when framed as a categorical syllogism, but arriving there through equivocation is quite a lot worse.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I wanted to state my argument precisely, since obviously this is a thorny issue.
This argument is ludicrous. You're relying on the definition that affirmative action is discrimination against white people, which is highly questionable. How many white men even think of it that way, instead of as leveling the playing field appropriately? It's far from objective in any case. It's not nearly as clear as racial slurs, for instance.
"The third argument is racist because it's a claim that one race/sex group is categorically better at something than another. We're at risk of debating semantics here, so let me add that my understanding of the term 'racist' only includes unjustified claims of this nature. (I think many people would claim that the term includes even justified claims that are not self-evidently obvious, i.e. truisms.) I disagree with claim 1, and think that claim 2 is not a precise enough statement to take a position on."
You seem to believe that on average Latina women experience more discrimination than white men. So what's your basis for saying claim 2 is not precise enough? As for claim 1, I don't understand why a greater understanding of racial dynamics compromises objectivity. If that's the basis for declaring the comment racist, it's pretty shaky.
Well, yes: it's ludicrous to equate the two forms of discrimination, and use that to assign people to "have experienced discrimination" and "have not experienced discrimination" categories. My point in making this distinction is just that it really isn't valid to say that if someone has been discriminated against, then they'll automatically be a better judge of cases involving discrimination. It's not valid for two reasons: first, the correlation between the two isn't at all clear, and given that objectivity is generally considered a good trait for a judge to possess, I think you can make a strong argument that personal experiences of this kind may compromise that more often than not and actually make their judgements worse. But the more fundamental problem is that "having experienced discrimination" is not quantified or described, making it a useless metric. I made the comparison above to point out the importance of this, since there's a lot of obviously bad metrics that you could use. At the very least, I hope we can agree that a proper measure is not self-evidently obvious, which is what the previous poster was claiming.
(This is tangential, but I will add that affirmative action is discrimination against white people. There's a strong argument you can make that this is justified for any of a number of reasons: re-leveling the playing field post-slavery and post-Jim Crow, contrasting affirmative action admissions to universities against legacy admissions (which are, of course, primarily white), the 'unconscious racist' argument (which I think is a bit of a cop out), etc. But I don't think it's questionable that it is discrimination, when that is, in fact, the entire point of affirmative action.)
You seem to believe that on average Latina women experience more discrimination than white men. So what's your basis for saying claim 2 is not precise enough? As for claim 1, I don't understand why a greater understanding of racial dynamics compromises objectivity. If that's the basis for declaring the comment racist, it's pretty shaky.
My guess is that they do. However, I don't have a way of measuring that, and it's a nebulous enough claim that I'm not sure where you'd start. If you don't have a measure, what does it even mean to discuss averages? What are you averaging, and why is the average the main concern, rather than the (non-existent) distribution's shape? (i.e., is there overlap?)
That said, let's take a step back. What would constitute a racist statement, to you? (I'm honestly curious to hear your definition, that isn't a loaded question.)
To me, it's simply any unjustified claim about a group of people based on their race. That's racism. If you're going to make categorical statements about the characteristics of a race of people, you damn well better have all your ducks in a row, especially if you're a public official. Let me be a little more systematic about how very much the ducks are not in a row here:
Property A has several definitions, and the metric for A is unknown.
Property B has several definitions, and the metric for B is unknown.
Property A has an unknown relationship with property B.
The probability of elements of set X and set Y having property A is unknown.
Original claim: The probability of elements of set X having property B is higher than elements of set Y.
Revised claim: The probability of elements of set X and set Y having property B is unknown.
(Property A: "having experiences of discrimination", Property B: "being a better judge of cases involving discrimination", Set X: "wise Latina women", Set Y: "white men".)
That's my objection, as precisely as I can think to state it.
But how does it compromise objectivity? We're talking about discrimination against minorities here. It's not like there's any dispute that it's wrong, so what's the danger in understanding how wrong it is from a personal experience? The only thing I can imagine is that someone is going to exact some sort of vicarious revenge through their role as a judge, and someone who has that kind of temperament doesn't belong in any position of power anywhere.
"I made the comparison above to point out the importance of this, since there's a lot of obviously bad metrics that you could use. At the very least, I hope we can agree that a proper measure is not self-evidently obvious, which is what the previous poster was claiming."
I'm not sure there was any such claim, first off. More importantly, you seem to be admitting that as far as common sense goes, Latina women experience more discrimination. I don't see how that's different from what was claimed to be a truism. The fact that this is such a common sense issue negates the talk about measuring this and that. There's all sorts of ways that someone can be discriminated against. On the white male side you have affirmative action, which is not unfair discrimination anyway (which is how I was using the term), and on the other hand you have everything from bigoted remarks to being denied a job to being assaulted. Those sorts of possibilities are quite obvious for minorities, and negligible for white men (apart from homophobia). So precise measurements are unnecessary here, because it's far from a photo finish.
"To me, it's simply any unjustified claim about a group of people based on their race. That's racism."
I agree that's racism, but the argument that this is unjustified simply because you can't put a decimal point on some metric is dead in the water.
Think about it another way:If every judge is white, and let's say that 10% either don't like minorities out of personal bias or just don't care (as Sotomayor said), you're going to get a somewhat proportionate percentage of bad decisions regarding issues of discrimination. Now, the more diversity you add into the system, you would think that the percentage would drop. You would hope that more often than not, someone with those life experiences is going to make a better decision on this specific sort of case than someone without those experiences. There is no unfair generalization involved in reaching this conclusion.
The danger is putting someone with an axe to grind in a position of authority regarding their grievance. A rape victim, for example, is going to have to make a much stronger effort to remain objective during a trial involving rape, because she'll empathize much more strongly with the accuser. Someone brutally beaten by neo-Nazis is going to have to make a much stronger effort to remain objective when a neo-Nazi is brought into his court on an assault charge. Does this mean that the victims in these cases can never be objective? Of course not. But I think it's wrong to say that they'll usually be better judges of these cases. It's not at all clear that they would be. Put another way: empathy, in general, is good. Empathizing a great deal with one side and not the other is not so good. In general, I suspect it leads to biased decisions.
More importantly, you seem to be admitting that as far as common sense goes, Latina women experience more discrimination. I don't see how that's different from what was claimed to be a truism. The fact that this is such a common sense issue negates the talk about measuring this and that.
It doesn't. In fact, I think it highlights the importance of it, and also why it is almost always a Really Bad Thing to generalize about races of people. Let me try the opposite, not-at-all systematic approach, before we give up and agree to disagree. Here are a few 'common sense' observations I've heard many times in my life (and I would like to emphasize that saying 'usually' instead of 'always' doesn't make these comments less objectionable):
Asians are usually smarter than whites.
Whites are usually more inventive than blacks.
Blacks are usually more violent than whites.
But wait...how are you measuring intelligence, and are you sure that metric actually correlates with intelligence? How are you measuring inventiveness? What's your metric for violence? These objections are dismissed with the breezy reply: "It's just common sense, man, c'mon!"
Well, "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen," or so Albert Einstein said.
There's all sorts of ways that someone can be discriminated against. On the white male side you have affirmative action, which is not unfair discrimination anyway (which is how I was using the term), and on the other hand you have everything from bigoted remarks to being denied a job to being assaulted.
There are no bigoted remarks ever directed at whites? There are, and I'd argue they're actually much more common because there's no taboo against it.
Whites are never denied jobs because they're white? They are, and a formal system is set up to guarantee this, in affirmative action. But even informally, a non-white manager is just as likely to be biased against white men as vice-versa. I'd argue, again, that this is actually more common because there's no taboo against it.
Whites are never assaulted because they're white? Let me just say, I hope you never have to live in the kind of slum I used to live in.
Also, many white men would disagree that affirmative action is fair. So would many minorities, for that matter, not least because of the stigma associated with it. The state university I went to, for example, had strong affirmative action policies in place: they gave you a significant boost on your application if you were a non-asian minority or a male. (Like many campuses, female applicants there far outnumber males.) I'm mixed race, and male. I got in, and had to put up with the 'affirmative action admit' label, and never mind that I had superb SAT scores and was a straight A student once I got there.
Are we talking about someone who is completely ignoring the merits of the case against the defendant? It's not like there's any controversy that it's wrong, either. The same principle applies:the more women you have on in the court system, the less "I suspended his sentence because she was asking for it by the way she was dressed" sort of results you're going to get.
"Asians are usually smarter than whites.
Whites are usually more inventive than blacks.
Blacks are usually more violent than whites."
You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not a stereotype to say that a minority is going to be discriminated against more than a white man. That's a clear application of the dynamics of power. If you believe for even a minute that people of all races see an equal amount of discrimination, then you don't accept that being in the majority carries any more power with it. That would be pretty difficult to justify.
"But even informally, a non-white manager is just as likely to be biased against white men as vice-versa."
I didn't say those things never happened to white men, I said that the amount is negligible in comparison to that seen by a minority. For this specific example, you're dreaming. The entire concept of systemic racism relies on the understanding that the bulk of the power rests with white people. Almost any non-white manager who is discriminating against white people has to answer to their superiors, who are more than likely to be white. It absolutely is not just as likely, because that person would surely know they couldn't get away with that.
"Also, many white men would disagree that affirmative action is fair."
Any white person who was displaced must statistically have lower aptitude than the minority that replaced them. The only way around that is to argue that the minority is inherently inferior.
I suggest you get a dictionary before you continue:
cat⋅e⋅gor⋅i⋅cal
–adjective
1. without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional: a categorical denial.
A statement full of qualifiers ("hope," "wise," "more often than not") is not "categorical." Period.
And please don't come back with "'categorical' can mean 'relating to categories'" because that simply is not what the phrase "categorical statement" means. Don't waste our time.
I disagree
You just blew your own argument out of the water. You're seriously arguing that it can't reasonably be said that a Latina woman is far more likely to have experienced discrimination than a white man? And doing it not only by raising the moldy oldie of "reverse discrimination" but by saying discrimination can't be "meaningfully quantif[ied]?" You really think that your statement "2. Latina women are more likely to have experienced racism than white men" (the original word was "discrimination," not "racism," but let that pass) is "not precise enough" to judge, which, if it means anything at all, means that you think it at least equally reasonable to assert that white men are as much a target of racism as Latina women?
That kind of disconnect from the world around you is disturbing. The fact is, my statement "a Latina woman is far more likely to have experienced discrimination than a white man" is a truism - it is self-evidently true to anyone not consciously seeking to deny it for whatever reasons of their own.
Then there is this:
3. Therefore, Latina women are likely to be better judges of these cases than white men.
First, contrary to your continued misunderstanding of the word, that statement is not "categorical." Nothing qualified with "likely" can be. Second, that is - yet again - not what Sotomayor said. So it's either a straw figure or irrelevant.
To make it closer to what she actually said, you'd have to add the phrase "You'd think that" at the beginning of the first statement and insert the phrase "you would hope that" after "therefore" in the third - plus admit that the second is indeed true. But of course you can't do that as it would undermine your bogus claim of "categorical racism."
Her statement was not racist. Period. And the distance you've had to stretch in an attempt to make it sound so, is more proof of that fact than it is a challenge to it.
Having said all that, I'll add that there is one area I expect we can agree: Having experienced discrimination does not necessarily make you a better judge of it. In fact, it is distressing how often those who have been the targets of bigotry of some form - who you would hope would be more sensitive to it - fail to recognize it when others are the targets.
That may have something to do with why Sotomayor went on to say - in a part rarely quoted and never by the rightwingers - that she hoped her experiences on the bench aided her in allowing for and overcoming whatever personal preconceptions she may have brought to a case. (That is not a quote but it's close enough for the moment.)
Be that as it may, this still does not mean that Sotomayor's statement was racist - merely that her hope might not be fulfilled.
Last: For what I expect are obvious reasons, there was no need to apologize for a lengthy response.
That is indeed what the phrase means. If there was any doubt that is what I meant, it should have been removed when I explicitly defined it that way. If I say I'm using the definition x = 4, it's not a valid rejoinder to reply, "oh but x = 6 in some other context, so you're wrong!" I do not wish to debate semantics with you. Merriam Webster:
1: absolute, unqualified <a categorical denial>
2 a: of, relating to, or constituting a category b: involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories
The fact is, my statement "a Latina woman is far more likely to have experienced discrimination than a white man" is a truism - it is self-evidently true to anyone not consciously seeking to deny it for whatever reasons of their own.
No, it isn't. I explained why in detail in both my replies to you and to the other poster above. You're not even making an argument here -- you're just declaring that I'm wrong, and also a liar, in the bargain. If you don't even have the basic civility to grant that I'm representing my own positions honestly, there isn't much point in talking with you, is there?
To make it closer to what she actually said, you'd have to add the phrase "You'd think that" at the beginning of the first statement and insert the phrase "you would hope that" after "therefore" in the third - plus admit that the second is indeed true. But of course you can't do that as it would undermine your bogus claim of "categorical racism."
Yes, you're correct that if you qualify a statement, by definition it can't be categorical in the sense that it's unqualified. (Which should make it glaringly obvious that I'm not using the word in that sense.)
Your position seems to be that couching an unjustified claim about a race of people in the language of probability makes it impossible for it to be racist. How about the claim "Asians are smarter than whites," which is pretty clearly racist? Is it suddenly not racist if I qualify the statement by saying, "I would think that Asians are likely to be smarter than whites"? Of course not. You've created a red herring by conflating my argument with a straw man based on a definition that I've now twice explicitly told you is not applicable.
Having said all that, I'll add that there is one area I expect we can agree: Having experienced discrimination does not necessarily make you a better judge of it. In fact, it is distressing how often those who have been the targets of bigotry of some form - who you would hope would be more sensitive to it - fail to recognize it when others are the targets.
Agreed.
She said, “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 her life,” in the context of deciding sex and racial discrimination cases. Just like in deciding an antitrust case, a judge who only had the experience of being a big corporate CEO might look at the case differently than a judge who only had the experience of being a small business owner.
Now you can agree or disagree with her sentiment that having judges with varying personal experiences makes the judicial system better. But calling her a “racist” because of it is completely and utterly INACCURATE. Once again I fear the conservative bigots will win on spinning this one…
Of course that's what she was talking about, and thank you for pointing that out. But that's precisely what the wingers want to avoid talking about, so they throw up the smokescreen of screeching "racist!" whenever possible, no matter how far they have to stretch the logic and facts to do it.
And of course diversity is valuable. Just consider the recent case before SCOTUS involving the 13-year old girl subjected to a strip search at school. During oral argument, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was visibly frustrated with the inability of her male colleagues to grasp how humiliating this was for the girl. They all seemed to be of the attitude, "hey, BFD." How the experience affected the girl was a relevant issue in the case, and their inability to relate to it could have an effect on the outcome.
I'll agree that "diversity" is important, but what do you base diversity on?