Sotomayor for the bench, Jim Crow for the West Bank (Where does the rubber meet the road on Jewish advocacy for minorities?)
All this week you will hear Jewish voices lifted on behalf of Sonia Sotamayor as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. No doubt all the dozen or so Jewish senators will vote for her confirmation. Like other minority strivers before her, Sotomayor's story resonates for American Jews because it recalls our own struggle to come inside the American establishment. Republican Arlen Specter praised diversity yesterday and said that it was wrong that it took till 1967 for a president to name a black justice to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. From the Times coverage of the hearing's opening day:
As he introduced her, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, choked up with emotion over her life story. Mr. Leahy compared her to Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, and Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice.
On NPR yesterday, Robert Siegel openly criticized Iowa Senator Charles Grassley for his criticism of President Obama's statement that he seeks judges with "empathy." The roles in the interview/encounter were clear. The Jewish journalist was siding with an African-American president on behalf of a Puerto Rican judge; on the other side was a heartland gentile, or as they used to say in postmodernist classes, a dead white male.
I've always been mildly cynical about the Jewish support for the civil rights struggle, though I have been engaged in that struggle myself. I have always wondered what portion of the large Jewish engagement was selfish: that blacks and Puerto Ricans, being far more numerous than Jews, might serve as our surrogates in our efforts to gain acceptance in American society. We could stand up for them without having to stand up so loudly for ourselves. All the Jewish lawyers serving Paul Robeson and other civil rights heroes--they were advocating for the Jews, too.
On the one hand the Sotomayor hearings lessen my cynicism. Jews are part of the American establishment; we're privileged, and still we affirm minority rights as a keystone of modern American society. That's great. I cheered Specter's statement as an expression of liberal, blue-state culture.
On the other hand, the hearings enlarge my cynicism. All this week we will be hearing empowered American Jews praising Sotomayor-- from Schumer to Specter to Franken, to Brian Lehrer on WNYC to Nina Totenberg, to Robert Morgenthau and Michael Bloomberg. Many of these Jews are also big supporters of Israel. Does it mean anything to them that in Israel, Palestinians are second-class citizens? And that several million Palestinians live in Jim Crow conditions on the West Bank, or worse, in Gaza? What does it mean that Israeli society is infused with racism, that a Barack Obama could never become prime minister in Israel--no, the Arab parties are not even invited into the governing coalitions, even as Labor breaks bread with the Jewish far right, in precisely the way that Mississippi black voters were dealt out of the Democratic Party in 1964--and that a Sonia Sotomayor would never be treated as an equal?
I have faith. The new Freedom Riders in the West Bank are stirring us all. Younger American Jews are fully aware of this hypocrisy, and that they will want no part of it.

















Pointing out such an "elephant in the room" contradiction is very honest. My hat's off to you. As far as ethnic minorities serving as surrogates for Jews to gain acceptance, it appears to a non-Jew like me, that such surrogation has availed leverage to Jews, as well; politically, there's strength in numbers. Since, as you point out, Jews are part of the American establishment now, organized Jewish ministrations in civil rights vineyards seem more habitual than impassioned or necessary, Sen. Schumer's bathos notwithstanding. Those contradictions also have become apparent: It's tough to gain traction as a liberation theologist nesting in the Hamptons.
Looking at Sotomayor's nomination head-on - let me give it to you straight - I'm ambivalent. She apparently is a wonderful jurist, but she carries with her the commitment, I think shared by many if not most ethnic-minority jurists, that America's socio-economic playing field must be leveled to correct decades of injustice and race-based manipulation. No one can rationally deny the historical reality of unfairness; however, judicial palliatives applied so far have been largely ineffective, with failure of busing to substantively improve education scores the signal failure in decades of its application.
In the case of the New Haven fire commander's test, there's suitable example of this worldview. The lower court determined the important factor was not whether the test results reflected merit as firefighters, but whether ethnic proportion of the test's successful applicants was suitably "fair". Simply, the bench of which Sotomayor was a part decided it was more important to have minority representation among fire officers than scrutinized, well-tested fire abatement professionals regardless of race or gender. Proficiency fighting fire simply wasn't really the issue - what mattered was the ethnicity of those leading such emergency responses.
Let's be honest: The court's decision that the test was "unfair" is code for "too hard". I don't have a problem with tests for fire commanders being too hard. Or tests for airline pilots, or building engineers. I want them to be rigorously tested to make sure they meet high standards. Our lives, after all, are on the line. Doctors staring down at us in operating rooms shouldn't be measured by professional criteria dumbed down in the name of fairness.
It's a narrow line, and I'm aware that our nation's past is filled with rigged machinery intended to stymie minority advancement. But I'm not sure how - now - our judicial standards can apply "across the board" repairing those outrages. In sectors that engage life-or-death issues everyday, I think the default must be, solely, merit.
July 15, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly concur with the general sentiment of your post and I'm glad to see that political correctness and doctrinal rigidity to the "Standard Liberal Line” (SLL) does not totally rule the roost at TPM Cafe yet.
July 15, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
that should read: "...and adherence to the docrinally rigid "Standard Liberal Line" (SLL) does not totally rule the roost at the TPM Cafe just yet"
July 15, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...doctrinally..." geesh!
July 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, let's say the Jews that were active in the civil rights movement did have ulterior motives. Would the civil rights movement have been better off without their support? No! You would then ask as you're asking now regarding Israel, why aren't they speaking out? There's nothing wrong with doing the right thing and getting benefit from it: it's called enlightened self-interest.
The double standard is clearly evident. American Jews are not loyal citizens if they too staunchly support Israel, and they are not good people if they don't take it upon themselves to right the wrongs you see in Israel. But we're the mainstream as you say, we're American citizens who happen to be Jewish--why do we have a special obligation to be involved in Israel?
Most American Jews don't have anything to do with Israel. It's some place they read about in the news, they might say prayers in synagogue and they might visit once in their life. The great majority of us don't belong to organizations, give money or lobby elected officials. The pervasive and nefarious lobby that decry is a figment of your imagination that you construct when you make a big deal of so and so president of AJC that nobody has ever heard of.
July 16, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand the Sotomayor hearings lessen my cynicism. Jews are part of the American establishment; we're privileged, and still we affirm minority rights as a keystone of modern American society. That's great. I cheered Specter's statement as an expression of liberal, blue-state culture.
Great point.UK Property Auctions
September 14, 2010 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of microsoft hyper v, iscsi specification
March 28, 2011 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability servers
April 27, 2011 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink