Gifted for Leadership: Sotomayor, Sexism, and the Supreme Court

back to LeadershipJournal.net

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

who we are

Amy Simpson

Julie Pierce

Natasha Sistrunk Robinson

Tracey Bianchi

Margaret Feinberg

Keri Wyatt Kent

Julia Mateer

Rene James

Angie Mabry-Nauta

editorial advisors

Free Newsletters

top sellers

on LeadershipJournal.net

« Who Do You Follow? | Main | Leading Through Downsizing »

May 27, 2009

Sotomayor, Sexism, and the Supreme Court

by by Caryn Rivadeneira

When I was in sixth grade, a classmate told me that his dad told him that a woman could never be president because she'd "get all PMSy and probably â€˜push the button' in one of her mood swings." This was in 1983, so that button she'd push was the "nuclear-war starting" button we all imagined on the big red phone next to the president's bed. I ended up hearing this argument more than one time in the course of my coming of age.

This was one of several comments I heard growing up that at once sickened and angered me - and definitely shaped the way I felt about women in leadership. Thanks to the truths my parents fed me, even at a young age, I recognized these comments to be sexist and ridiculous - and totally out of whack with how God equipped women and who God made women to be.

So throughout my life, I've cheered any time a glass ceiling has been shattered. Any time a woman has made it to where no woman made it before. When this happened in the political realm, I've cheered on and celebrated women on both sides of the aisle. Though I DO have a definite political preference and do not vote simply on gender, I still find myself rejoicing under the glass shards.

So I was ready to celebrate once again when I heard President Obama's nomination of Hon. Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice. While she wouldn't be the first woman on the court, as the mother of a Latina, I'm always thrilled for new role models for my daughter (and sons) who share part of their Latin heritage.

However, my celebration was halted by one of her widely reported statements. Unless you spent yesterday in a coma or a cave, you've heard or read this too. In a lecture on law and cultural diversity at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001, Hon. Sotomajor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This comment did not sit well with me. In fact, it fired up those the same angry and sick feeling from 1983. I searched in vain for "context" that would make this "okay." Maybe she was joking? Quoting someone elseâ€¦.? But no, she said it: that race and gender alone (or with varied experience) allow one person to reach better conclusions in the courtroom than someone of a different race and gender.

Aside from the troubling legal ramifications, I can't help but think how much evil this line of thinking has caused in the past. It's why women were kept out of political and professional and church life for long. It's why Africans were enslaved - and African-Americans kept out of those same realms as women. It's why people hated the Irish when they flooded U.S. shores. Why Catholics and Protestants have fought - and still do. It's what makes discussions on immigration reform turn racist so quickly. Frankly, it's the thinking behind any hate group you can find.

As women gifted by God to lead, as women who have faced this sort of thinking (although reversed) so many times in our lives, who have suffered because of it, we need to react - loud and strong! - to a comment as ugly and ridiculous as Hon. Sotomayor's. She needs to know that women interested in being valued for their gifts and skills and hard work, don't need to resort to the bully tactics others have used on us.

I hope her life experience indeed does help her reach a better conclusion here. I hope she's changed her mind in the nearly 10 years since she said this (Lord knows I've changed my mind on many things since then!). If so, I hope she apologizes - and explains. Then we can get back to celebrating.

If she still believes what she said, frankly, I fear what this means going forward. We've come so far on the sexism and racism fronts. We still have far to go - but unfortunately, this wise Latina with her rich (and inspirational!) experiences brought us back.

Comments

Here is a link to a NYT article in which Sotomayor makes the statements we're talking about.

Caryn, even when we don't totally agree I always respect your wise words. I agree with you that her wording it this way was a mistake. I interpreted this a bit differently, however.

First of all, I admit that I didnâ€™t initially pay much attention to her so-called racist statements. The problem seemed to lie in one sentence eight years ago in an entire career of otherwise reasonable statements and decent record on behalf of justice. Could this just be media noise? Or the meager findings of ultra-conservatives who clamor to unearth something (anything!) wrong with an Obama pick? Can we forgive the lapse and move on?

Comments from voices like yours have made me think twice, though. Maybe sheâ€™s inferring more than I initially realized... But when I first heard these statements on the radio, I thought she meant that her background and minority status had given her a broadened perspective. She said that being Latina and a woman gave her a "richness of experience" that a white male doesn't have. I can agree with that: no male could truly acquire or learn the perspective of being female, just like I can't undo the inherent privilege I have by being white in the United States. I didn't hear her say this experience makes her conclusions inherently better than everyone else's â€“ and thereâ€™s the rub. But if she merely meant that her experiences have made a difference for the better, she would be right...right?

And just to be clear: I think racial and sexual and experiential differences are all good things. Each of those give us wonderfully different perspectives that add value to almost any sphere of life. It's why I believe in diversity.

HOWEVER, I don't want my judges judging based on any of those things--or thinking that any of those things gives them superior insight. Those people should run for legislative positions then. I want judges to judge on the rule of law. Period. I realize that doesn't always happen, but I don't think it is too much to ask for from a Supreme Court justice nominee.

Oh, and it probably was Conservatives digging around for dirt who unearthed this. Just as we saw plenty of Liberals do the same thing. Politics as usual. : )

Ok, I cannot help myself, Caryn. Wanted to give you something to think about. Rule of law is not so simple. It necessarily involves the judgment and persepective of those interpreting it. For example, "equal protection of the laws" at one time allowed the state to prohibit women from taking certain employment positions, etc. etc. because of a limited understanding of who women were. If the general rule is treat like alike and unlike differently under equal protection, it makes perfect sense to allow discrimination when people believed things like, oh, I don't know, pms made women not able to lead like men could. But, lo and behold, through the perspective of many women (and their male allies) and a whole lot of legal work by the sitting liberal non-strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, attitudes and perspectives changed in society and on the bench. And now there is broad consensus that discrimination exits and equal protection is violated when you treat women differently because of ill informed and ridiculous stereotypes about their differences. The meaning of "equal protection of the laws" took on a new, better informed meaning.

I look forward to the perspective a Latina women on the Supreme Court helping to write BETTER decisions because her experiences and perspective will bring new meaning to how we understand things and result in more nuanced, sophisticated and higher level thinking about issues where that experience is relevant. And, I think this was all she was saying.

Please go out and celebrate with your daughter :) It is all good.

John from TCHS :)

Surely she will be asked by someone to address this at some point in the near future... Right?

Caryn,
Why is it that we are so quick to color eight years by one sentence? I wouldn't want anyone to characterize me by one sentence out of even eight minutes. And why are we in the "conservative" community so ready to assume that our interpretation of that ONE sentence truly defines what Sotomayor stands for? Isn't that a little reactionary?

You say that you want judges to "judge on the rule of law" and I assume you mean (but I could be wrong) that you want people to judge from a purely detached, purely objective point of view.

The problem with that idea is that purely objective opinion is a myth. We cannon get outside of our selves. I'm guessing this is why we have panels of judges for everything from Dancing with the Stars to the Supreme Court. After all, if it were possible to be purely objective, why would we even need an appeal process?

I am a caucasian woman, and I for one am thrilled that Sotomayor has been nominated to this position. From what I have seen of power and privilege, I believe that this woman's experiences will bring a much needed voice to the Supreme Court.

John: Love that you chimed in with your lawyerly self. Always good to have a man around here.... You come to much better conclusions than I could. : )

I agree that her presence on the Supreme Court (or anywhere) could help in the shaping and crafting and writing of opinions. I agree wholeheartedly that diversity in EVERYTHING is good. And I thank all the people who went ahead of us in broadening thinking, etc.

But we're talking about the Supreme Court--where they're supposed to be holding things against the Constitution, right? Not against personal experience? Or was I spaced out that semester in AP Government? That's all I'm worried about.

And Sue: This is why I'd love to hear her explain herself. I agree that it's harsh to judge someone on a brief statement (I've said enough terrifying stuff to keep me out of office!), but sheesh. It was quite a statement! I wish she'd say it came out wrong or was meant in fun or that she winked at her white friend when she said it or whatever.

But, seriously, reverse those words around. What if a white man said that about a Latina!! Would he stand a chance? What if she would've said she could make better conclusions than a Black Man--or a gay man? What if Ann Coulter said this? Seriously. As if.

I just think it's an incredibly divisive thing to say. And I can't believe I'm still fired up about this....

And, actually, I don't think the current slate of Justices are all from powerful backgrounds, are they? Anyone?

I commend her rise to a Supreme Court nomination but not her interpretation of the Constitution.

She is an inspirational story but is too left for my taste.

slate's "women" site has a great article about this very thing: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/sotomayor-reverse-racist

i have to say, i bristled after i saw that rush limbaugh was saying sort of the same thing you are saying here. not trying to compare the two of you! just can't stand him, and think pretty much everything he says is insane...

would like to hear your thoughts about the article link.

and here's another good article about it as well, from the same site: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/latina-wiser-white-man

Well, Rush and I aren't exactly saying the same thing. I don't think she's a reverse racist; I think what she SAID is regular racist. ; )

The second article you posted was interesting, Kristi. All this has got me thinking about the difference between being tried by a jury of our peers (ones we'd want to have similar experiences as us, right?) and having an "impartial" judge....

Just last week, I was thinking about going to seminary. Now maybe I better go to law school....

But really, my point for this context was to consider the things we women in leadership say. It's easy to slide into blaming and one-up-womanship and all that because of the junk we've gone through. But we need to be careful.

America, having been a white-male-centric country for most of it's life, would not understand Sotomayor...most minorities and many women did. You've heard "it's a man thing" or "it's a woman thing, you wouldn't understand"? Well this is a "minority thing". It's like a soldier on the front lines knowing more about the war than a congressman. The soldier saw the enemy, the congressman only heard about the enemy. What is the enemy here? Bigotry. Whites thoughout their lives have mostly heard about bigotry. Hispanics (and women and minorities) saw the enemy and the enemy was shooting at them. She, basically is there to COUNTER bigotry (otherwise, you might as well just pick 9 white conservative males or 9 liberal black females)...in a perfect world they would come to the same conclusions..this is not a perfect world and you need to represent everyone...not to make a bland middle of the road choice, but to counter one another and keep things "real"

I want to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt, but I can't help but think that her comment is just plain racist. I'm sure she'll talk her way around it in the days to come, but it is what it is. I'm also hesitant about her because she could be one of those judges who wants to create policy from the bench instead of just interpreting the law. As for her being a woman and a Latina, I couldn't care less.

I don't think Sotomayor is racist in her comment. It's simply a statement of perspective. What if there was no change in perspective because of experience (or race or gender)? There would still be slavery in this country. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote or serve in government. No women in the military? Segregation? Not to mention many other circumstances that have changed for the better due to the perspective of people with experience other than the "white male." I think she is just saying that she can interpret the law more broadly because of her experience rather than in spite of it.

What differences does it make about her background and/or gender? If she is to sit on highest court to judge she needs to judge by the Constitution not her background or gender. A problem that come up recently with this past election was we need sensitive judges that judge by feelings. Well would if all or even some of the judges on the Supreme Court had a bad day. They need to judge by their feelings? I could go on with feeling and background. Bottom line they need to forget their gender and background to judge fairly and justly by the Constitution.

As far as her remarks I find them offensive I do not see how that makes be a better judge just a different perspective perhaps but not better.

We are all products of our environment, to a greater or lesser degree. And those experiences color who we are and how we respond to the world around us - we can't HELP it. (Which is what I pointed out to my fellow journalism students when they maintained they could write an objective story.) And because of my background, : ) I think we also need to be very careful about taking Judge Sotomayor's comment out of context. I would want to read (or hear) the entire speech before even attempting to render judgment.

She's been doing what she's been doing a very long time. If she weren't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, she wouldn't have been nominated. If she is approved, she will approach that position with professionalism and a full awareness of the parameters of the job. Her educational history shows she's certainly no idiot; nor is she lazy. And her background and experience would bring a perspective to the Court that has never before been represented. Whether we agree with her perspective or not, that is worth a great deal in a country that values diversity.

Sotomayor would be IMMEDIATELY disqualified from sitting on ANY and EVERY jury in America due to the racist statements she made indicating her "problem" with white males.

If you were a white male, (or any ethnicity for that matter), how would like to have Sotomayor as judge if the opposing person was a female Latino.... and by Sotomayor's own admission sure to get preferential treatment.

This woman is exactly opposite of what we need in America today.

Obama should withdraw her name immediately.

I agree with Dave 100% and I agree with Caryn too.

Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- whoâ€™s motto is â€œFor our race everything- for others, nothingâ€. Her record is nothing to shout about either, and frankly -if you've heard her speak- she's not what you'd call a towering intellectual.

And clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda tooâ€¦ as does Obama IMO, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the Britishâ€¦ and heâ€™s the one who nominated all these kooks.

Whatever happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldnâ€™t want to be judged by any of them after what Iâ€™ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.

If Obama is going to go on with his â€œjusticeâ€ agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

It's great that a woman has been nominated for the Supreme Court and I agree with Caryn's concerns. I'm bothered that this is being made a racial matter. Are we going for quotas on the Supreme Court? I do agree that we need diversity on the bench but we need someone with wise judgment no matter what their race, gender or background. But we're not supposed to criticize her because she's a Latino and it would insult other Latinos? That's racist and intimadating. I think we need to look at her record closely. I'm concerned about the percentage of Sotomoyor's cases that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. This tells me that her judgment is skewed by something. Just like other justices before her she needs to go through a thorough scrutiny without anyone being concerned about offending other women or Latinos. It should be respectful but thorough. I'm concerned that her statements reflect a partiality that will affect her decisions.

Sotomayor's comments were both racist and sexist. Her use of language was blatantly sexist: "latina WOMAN" versus "white MALE" She used "MALE" to signal that she sees men as less than women. Also, she quite clearly indicated that LWs would make better decisions than WM. As to white men having historically had all of the advantages, that is not true. Only a small group of white men has inherited privileges; many have worked long, hard, dangerous jobs to provide for their families. Even today, men are the victims of systematic discrimination that no one likes to mention; a good example is selective service registration and all of the laws instituted to force men to register. Not that any of this matters, Sotomayor will be confirmed.

Gifted for Leadership

categories

who we are

editorial advisors

Free Newsletters

top sellers

on LeadershipJournal.net

Sotomayor, Sexism, and the Supreme Court

Comments

recent posts

Archives

resources

Writing for
Gifted for Leadership

Gifted for Leadership

categories

who we are

editorial advisors

Free Newsletters

top sellers

on LeadershipJournal.net

Sotomayor, Sexism, and the Supreme Court

Comments

recent posts

Tags

Archives

resources

Writing forGifted for Leadership

Writing for
Gifted for Leadership