If You Join the Sotomayor 'Race' Debate....
In the 1980s, when Judge Sonia Sotomayor was on the board of New York's Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, I was a columnist critical of some PRLDEF initiatives on racial election districting and on police and fire department promotional exams.
I knew some PRLDEF staff but hadn't heard of Sotomayor, and since I've sworn off posting for awhile to write a book on other subjects, I don't know if she supported the specific suits I criticized. But it's likely, and, in response to some inquiries, I offer here some leads. (Also, my columns on Obama's handling of race in the 2008 campaign are in "Sleeper's Obama Chronicles.")
Republicans look ridiculous going into heat over Sotomayor's comments about her "Latina" perspectives. But that shouldn't stifle criticism by serious observers of positions she took at PRLDEF, or questions about whether her thinking has changed.
First, on what a "Latina" or other ethno-racial viewpoint should and shouldn't bring to court deliberations, here's an instructive, if anecdotal assessment, in Dissent, drawn from my serving on New York juries.
In "Voting Wrongs," an important chapter of Liberal Racism that helped to change thinking about racial election-districting, I wrote pretty scathingly about a New York "Hispanic" congressional district in whose creation PRLDEF (and then-mayoral candidate Rudy Giuliani!) played important roles.
I won't reprise those arguments here except to say that, at the time, such districts did little to increase their intended beneficiaries' turnouts at the polls and actually helped hand Congress to Republicans. Mayoral candidate Giuliani rode an Amtrak train to Washington with PRLDEF representatives and ushered them into the Justice Department (where he'd been associate attorney general under Reagan) to assist their successful bid for an Hispanic district. Many Republicans loved the left's color-coding strategy here, at least tactically. To follow what was at stake in it, do read this chapter.
This is also the place to mention that another chapter of Liberal Racism describes at some length the legal and political odyssey of , Harvard Law School Prof. Randall Kennedy, who tellingly (and, I think, very wisely) challenged what was known as "critical race theory" in legal studies when Obama was a student at the law school.
Regarding exams for cops and firefighters, on pages 162-4 of The Closest of Strangers, I took issue some of the reasoning behind challenges by PRLDEF and others to such exams.
Look these up if you're going to weigh in on the confirmation hearings.
And, again, I've collected my TPM columns on Obama's handling of race throughout the 2008 campaign as "Sleeper's Obama Chronicles." Posted from the morning after the New Hampshire primary of January 8, 2008 through Inauguration Day, these trace the evolution of my and many other people's thinking about Obama's candidacy and his handling of charges involving race, elitism, exoticism, and more.
If you or anyone you know is writing a book or article on the campaign, you'll want these columns. They include assessments of what other commentators --Shelby Steele (1 column), Sean Wilentz (2 columns), and leftist academic critics of Obama (2) -- were saying about his handling of race. They also assess Louis Farrakhan's unwanted endorsement, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's comment about whites who "cling to guns and God," and Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia.
Other titles suggest their contents: "Obama, Crowds, And Power", "Obama: Neo-Liberal or Civic-Republican?" There are also two classic columns on Republicans -- "Why Giuliani Really Shouldn't be President," -- a column that played a critical role in turning the chattering classes against his bid -- and "Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!" on the 2008 Republican National convention.
Also included in the "Obama Chronicles" are comments that others made about the columns in the New York Times "Opinionator," The Chronicle of Higher Education, and the website of neo-con Obama-basher Daniel Pipes.
Finally, I'll mention that I've also collected my eight TPM columns on Israel, Gaza, and how and how not to report on Israel-Palestine. At last, they're all in one place, along with a link to a 20-minute NPR interview I did on them.
Sorry not to be able to offer more on the Sotomayor debate, but I'd better get back to work.
It is interesting how in Jim Sleeper's comments he never remarks whether he supports or does not Justice Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. Latinos did not invent identity politics they are a response to exclusion of Latinos from the body politic of the United States. Ask yourself how many Latin@ commentators have been invited to comment on the Sotomayor nomination?
Query whether the same would happen if they had a Black nominee and no Black journalist were invited to comment. Latinos in New York have been invisibilized.
As to the Sotomayor appointment and its merits.
I guess graduating from Princeton, Yale Law school editor, 17 years on the bench is not enough without you folks bringing up the identity politics boogeyman. The embrace of Obama and Sotomayor is a reflection of two communities of color who have been excluded but in this new age will not longer allow themselves to become invisibilized. If Sotomayor is not qualitied then who is? I didn't know that being culturally neutered was a Supreme Court requirement?
In any event Senators like Chuck Schumer among others have stepped up to the plate. Jim's anti-Puerto Rican rantings will not suffice. Jim can you outline the articles you have written on the numerous contributions of Puerto Rican/Latinos to the quality of life of the city in the 80's so we can look those up as well? I suspect they are few and in-between.
Puerto Ricans like Justice Sotomayor are part of the new America. We have fought in every American war since 1917. Yet when one of us finally receives the recognition our community deserves we always have those that use identity politics to mask "white is right" philosophy.
In the ultimate analysis in America we will never get past race/ethnicity until Republicans and their liberal accomplices understand we have as much invested in this country and deserve equal treatment under the law.
Wake up Jim Sleeper.
May 30, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 30, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the offending comment, of course: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It's bizarre, and please don't anybody lecture me (again!) about the supposedly-excusing context. If there is more like that line in her background, particularly from her activist days as you note here, it may be a bumpy ride. The fact that she would say something as reckless as the foregoing suggests she may have an incautious nature and may have said such things elsewhere.
May 30, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Overreach, but I cannot resist lecturing you again: context is everything. I do appreciate that this time you quoted the supposedly offending sentence in full, without resorting to ellipses,
As for the possibility that Sotomayor has made other, perhaps even more egregious statements, why don't you wait for the Republican oppo teams to actually dig them up before announcing that the sky is falling?
I'm sure they are on the case right now, and they will serve up the worst stuff they can unearth. If this is all they've got, the judge is laughing.
May 31, 2009 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha-ha, nice to hear a lecture without name-calling at least, *thanks for writing, acanuck!* :)
I gave the full quote last time as well BTW, it was there once in full and once in ellipses. To me, the context didn't help her much and the statement seemed so egregious that it couldn't in my mind rescue her, however many times I was called a "moron" and suchlike on here! :)
Actually I have changed my view of this totally, though. Her statement can be interpreted in two completely different ways, one totally offensive and the other so neutral as to virtually be a tautology. I wrote on my blog (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/05/the-sotomayor-problem-is-real.php) in here a gamechanging "UPDATE" that:
================================================
WAIT! I realize there is a softer way to read what she said, that didn't occur to me. I think the critics read it like this, which is how I understood it:
"If you take a Latina, and Latinas are mostly wise, she'll normally make a better decision than some white guy."
She may have meant this, though, as I think of it: "If you take a Latina who happens to be wise and informed by a variety of experiences, she'll probably make a better decision than a white guy who isn't so informed and maybe isn't so wise." So maybe this is the explanation and it just wasn't obvious to many of us in her phrasing. Then she's off the hook, as I see it.
=========================================
Newt may not have known of the benign interpretation -- I sure didn't see it. Weird, huh?
May 31, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'll take the bait.
I'll respond without demanding that you put the remark in its context, not that it would be unfair to ask you to do so. My response will be directed only to the sentence itself.
Please note the two subjunctives which I'll do you the favor of highlighting.
These subjunctives remove from the sentence any declarative meaning the sentence would have had without them. Something like this:
So you can't get from the original sentence to the one the righties are yammering about without distorting it.
To the extent that the original sentence has any meaning it all, contrary to the anti-affirmative-interpretation of the posterboys of the right who have chosen to demonize it, is an attempt to hold herself to a higher standard, not a lower one. She "would hope" that she could be better. She isn't declaring that she is. She's raising the bar on herself, not asking others to lower it for her!
Proof's in the pudding. It ain't trash-talking if she can back it up. That's ALL it means.
May 31, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think you may be Overreaching with your subjunctives. But see my reply to acanuck above; for what seem to be different reasons(?) than yours, I have reversed my position on this.
Most of all, THANK YOU for keeping this discussion civil, as only above half the commenters have. Bravo!
May 31, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief!
This is quite the exercise in self-involved onanism.
It's a wonder that her name is in the title, this is a not-so-subtle commercial for the (supposed) brilliance of Jim Sleeper.
That said, reading your tortured gluts of verbiage was bad enough the first time.
May 31, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me translate for you - "I, Jim Sleeper, have written a book by Jim Sleeper in which, I Jim Sleeper, has been warning people who aren't Jim Sleeper, that Jim Sleeper knows that, I, Jim Sleeper, told you affirmative action doesn't work, especially for non Jim Sleepers."
May 31, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bev. That really made me laugh, and I needed a good laugh!
-- ARG
June 3, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your second interpretation - the one which says merely that people with different backgrounds and experiences will view the world differently - is one any reasonably intelligent, open-minded person would choose.
Should the Republicans unearth other statements which undeniably support the first interpretation then she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court or any other Court (except in the eyes of Rosenswine and similar complete morons).
May 31, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The above was a response to "Overreach this!"
May 31, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that Sleeper is so concerned about the "ethno-racial viewpoint" that results in Latino congressional districts, but hesitates to offer a similarly strong criticism of Zionism, which gives Jews not just a district, but a whole state (and manages to disenfranchise an Arab majority at the same time).
Jewish exceptionalism, I guess . . .
May 31, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State is the kind of anti-semitic garbage which pollutes this site.
Zionism was not invented by, nor Israel populated by, refugees from the United States...nor is the Zionist state of Israel surrounded by tolerant, secular neighbors.
May 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to Hostos, I don't oppose Sotomayor's nomination. Nowhere have I suggested that she isn't amply qualified -- and, by the way, I don't think that one need have attended Princeton and Yale to be amply qualified. I expect to support her nomination, but first, if Hostos and others wouldn't mind, I'd like to listen to what she has to say in the confirmation hearings. Yes, they're often circuses, but sometimes a lot can be learned despite some senators' grand-standing.
And there are definitely some things I'd like to learn, such as what she now thinks of racial election districting and certain affirmative-action policies. These alone could not determine whether she should be confirmed; I think she should be, but I still want to know. Would that be okay? Or must we declare our solidarity and salute a "PC" or ethno-racial flag right now? I really don't have time to research everything myself; I'm the consumer more than the journalist here; but since I do have an ample record of reportage and analysis in this area, and got a couple of inquiries about it last week, I thought it worthwhile to share what I had. Is that okay, too?
Purple State probably didn't make it to the second-to-last paragraph of my post and didn't click the link and re-read some columns on Israel and Palestine I referenced there. He will find "criticism of Zionism" as strong as any I've ever made of the PRLDEF positions I cited. But, really, the two aren't analogous, unless ethno-racial identity politics in the US is like national-liberation movements of one kind or another elsewhere. Is it? I don't think so. In any case, no one who understands my columns on Israel and Palestine will hurl cute terms like "Jewish exceptionalism" at me for supposedly sparing Jews harsh criticism while lambasting American Latinos. Come on!
May 31, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jim, it was your second-to-last paragraph that reminded me of the articles you wrote about Israel during the Gaza war. In those articles (which are quite interesting and worth rereading by the way), you are clearly conflicted--struggling between your respect for Zionism and your horror at the Gaza atrocities and the grinding cruelty of a 40-year occupation. That attitude contrasts rather starkly with the easy and untroubled way in which you unambiguously condemn Latino ethno-racial politics. It's also somewhat surprising to me that in your articles on Israel, you criticized Darryl Li and Chris Hedges for not not seeing the complexity of the situation--for their "somewhat reductionist analysis of causes and consequences"--and yet here you make no attempt whatsoever to understand the complexity of the political and social context behind these attempts at ethno-racial districting. Worse, you provide no proof that Sotomayor was in favor of the Hispanic district--but you imply guilt by association. And you don't bother to question why someone like Sotomayor might be involved with an organization like PRLDEF for a number of broader reasons, regardless of whether she supports all that organization's positions or not.
So yes, I did read your second-to-last paragraph--and your prior articles too. And I did think the contrast between the tone of this article and those prior articles was very interesting.
Also, there is some similarity, I think, between the gerymandering that has occured in Israel-Palestine to create a Jewish-dominated state and the gerymandering that occurs in our major cities at times to create minority-dominated congressional districts. Personally, I find both problematic--but in a world that isn't yet blind to race and ethnicity--fairness sometimes requires those of us who desire to be blind to remain sighted. Hispanic districts may be just as necessary in some way as a Jewish state. Or just as unnecessary.
May 31, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, we have gone back and forth in the past, and I've had to conclude sadly that you don't read very well, by which I mean that you project what amounts to an obsession with Israel -- which you certainly seem to have, but which I don't -- onto whatever you're reading, even a column about American racial policies that mentions Israel only to make a passing announcement that I've collected a couple of sets of my columns, including the ones of the Gaza War.
A perfect case in point is your describing one of those columns as criticizing Darryl Li -- whom I quote at great length after introducing as a former human-rights activist in Gaza and a brilliant law student at Yale and doctoral student at Harvard -- for not seeing the complexity of the situation.
Read it again. I bring Li to most readers' notice for the first time ever, not to "expose" or criticize him but to give him the floor for much of the column, reproducing as almost no one ever does a lot of what he wrote, because I think it so valuable that I don't even want to risk people's missing it by not following the link. I ask him some questions that indicate where I'm doubtful of some of his points. But that is what people do when they are in respectful dialogue with someone: Give them the floor, and then, instead of picking them apart, reaching out to them with good questions that give them a chance to clarify areas of disagreement.
C'mon, Purple State. Get real. Several of the other columns -- "US, UK, Drop Their (and Israel's) Grand Strategy" are very harshly critical of Israel, and the one you mentino that criticizes Hedges - "How (How not) to Assess Israel's Moral Self-Destruction" -- lives up to its headline, not least because it is much more critical of Jeffrey Rosen than of Hedges.
Another of my columns in that set is entitled, "Gaza Needs a George Orwell Now." You're not that guy, but at least you should try to read more carefully, certainly before responding to a column on the Sotomayor "race" debate with a comment about something whose only relation to the matter is that I made a passing announcement about the Israel-Gaza columns near the end.
May 31, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Near the end of the above msg, I meant to say that I am "much more critical of Jeffrey Goldberg" -- not Jeffrey Rosen. Rosen was on my mind because he has been writing about Sotomayor, the main subject of my post. Try to stick to the subject, and in a more constructive way. That's a pretty basic rule of decent discussion.
May 31, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm sure it's just my poor reading ability, but to me it seems that the questions you pose to Li and Hedges are both numerous and challenging enough to suggest that you are doing more than merely asking those authors to clarify and expand their arguments for the sake of advancing the discussion. But then, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm probably wrong.
Of course what led to my initial comment (and maybe it was unfair) was my annoyance at the passive aggressive way in which you insinuate that Sotomayor is what I guess you'd call a liberal racist were you bold enough to actually make the accusation rather than simply suggest it through innuendo. You admit that you have no proof or knowledge of Sotomayor's stance on redistricting or the firefighting exams--but somehow it seems important to suggest "leads" for those who want to participate in this "race debate." Well why? Does it really matter that Sotomayor, 25 years ago as a newly minted law school graduate, was on the board of an organization devoted to advancing the civil rights of Hispanics? Maybe ethnic redistricting was a bad tactic. Maybe the firefighting exams weren't really unfair to Hispanics. But exclusion (for whatever cause) was real enough and those trying to end it--even if their approaches at times veered off course--certainly had their hearts in the right place and deserve more praise than criticism. And of course PRLDEF did much more than advocate for redistricting or different exams for firefighters. It also lobbied hard for bilingual education and bilingual ballots. Maybe those are bad things too--but anyone who knows anything about education knows that some degree of bilingualism is important, especially for older students. And bilingual ballots seem inoffensive enough to me.
So why toss more fuel on a Limbaugh/Gingrich-lit fire that really just needs to be doused? Are you really trying to clarify anything here with your "leads"? Will we really learn anything? I guess I just don't get it. But then, I'm not a very good reader.
June 1, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Sleeper: Another macho white male against Sotomayor.
May 31, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is just an amazing amount of intellectual dishonesty around Sotomayor. The issue is very simple, and revolves around the idea that we are a "nation of laws, not of men."
To me that's an assertion that law is formulaic, that is to say, given the facts 2+2, the judgement has to be 4. In the world of formulas, human differences do not matter.
But, some people believe that the law should not be applied impartially. Sometimes the facts 2+2 should equal 3 or 5. That is the belief that we are a nation of men not law.
There is no question that Sotomayor expressed the opinion that occasionally, we should not be a nation of laws, but of personal opinion. That's the real issue here. Which view of America is the more appropiate? Should we be a nation of laws or of men?
May 31, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a dangerous conceit to equate law with mathematics. Law is very much subject to interpretation, very easily bent to personal bias.
May 31, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm gladdened to see you admit that. As you are one of the principal purveyors of intellectual dishonesty around here, you clearly know what you are doing. To see you come clean, finally, is moderately heartening.
Now go away.
May 31, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had brains you'd be a human being.
May 31, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, you don't like another troll being called on his BS. You, of course, are equally feculent.
May 31, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you one of the shits who constantly shouts about Israeli violations of international law...while never acknowledging that that law is mostly a tool of Arab strategy?
Don't you constantly point to the defects of American law while insisting upon conformity to that law whenever it suits you?
If you want to call somebody on his BS you have to provide substantive arguments...but that requires a brain.
May 31, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink