JOHN MCWHORTER JUNE 9, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This idea that Sonia Sotomayor's line that a "wise Latina woman" has an advantage in judging over a white man is racist can be taken in two ways.
One is that the people saying this are just playing politics. The other is that they are as curiously deaf to what the term racism means as they assail liberals of being, standing right alongside their bugbears such as Jeremiah Wright in slowing America's progress towards "post-racialism."
What Sotomayor has meant is that a Latina woman is better placed to render judgments because being a member of a minority group makes one especially alert to being perceived in various ways as an other, and that being a member of a minority group of disproportionate poverty lends one sensitivity to the difficulties of being poor and how our concepts of justice might be informed by that.
There is indeed a certain smugness in the statement, as if to be a middle-class white person is to inherently lack the empathy, imagination, or just intelligence to filter one's judgments through walking in other people's shoes.
However, Sotomayor rather plainly did not mean that Latina people are in some inherent way, possibly genetic, better posed to render legal judgments than white people.
Now, if Newt Gingrich and company are aware of this but have been slinging the R-word around as members of a political party on the ropes trying to whip up the base, then it's not pretty but it's pragmatic. When has politics ever been fair, and whence the idea that politics will somehow primly avoid the single third rail of racial sensitivities?
However, if this crowd hear Sotomayor's statement and genuinely suppose that she was stating that people of Latin heritage are inherently better judges than white ones, then they are exhibiting a peculiarly unreflective paranoia, proposing that naked, stoo-pid racism lurks behind every tree in 2009--just as they are so disgusted to hear when a liberal pulls the same kind of thing. They are ignoring the obvious context Sotomayor assumed an intelligent listener would fill in, such as that Latinos are a disadvantaged minority group in a country run (mostly) by whites.
Yet these are the same people who tell us that one of the cardinal sins of the left is seeing racism everywhere. And indeed we saw more than a little of this sort of thing from the left last year.
Cries of racism when Hillary Clinton mentioned that Lyndon Johnson got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed were Exhibit A: this was a simple historical fact, brought up by someone justifiably arguing for her richer governing experience than Barack Obama's. The fact that certain people didn't like hearing the fact evinced, out of a preference that Martin Luther King stand as the sole Great Savior of black America, did not mean that Mrs. Clinton's statement was "racist."
At that time, there were the same two possible interpretations, both of which seemed to play a part. On the one hand it was handy for Obama fans to bash Mrs. Clinton as "racist" as a sharp-elbowed political ploy. However, there also seemed to be a genuine sense of offense among many--Representative James Clyburn's sincerely injured "We must be very, very careful about how we speak about that era" was a case in point--genuinely supposing that a lifelong Democrat in need of the black vote would casually stand up and dismiss the significance of Reverend King.
Our national discussion on what racism is has become dismayingly incoherent from both sides, and we seem poised to see this in living color, so to speak, in the new conversation on identity politics occasioned by Sotomayor's nomination and impending decisions on Affirmative Action.
For example, Justice John Roberts' line on Affirmative Action that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is a know-nothing canard. When racial preferences mean tipping the scale to a person of color when qualifications are equal, then the claim that this must be dismissed as "discriminating against" whites neglects the coherent argument that redressing the injustices of the past is of value to a morally advanced nation.
Obama has based his nomination of Sotomayor on this principle, and opinions like Roberts' are the kind that lead to comments along the lines of Latinas being "wise" in a way that Roberts reveals himself not to be.
Objecting, one must grapple with the fact that in most such tipping-the-scale cases, the whites in question are poised to be granted what their merit indicates in another slot. Given how few applicants of color qualify for top-ranked schools, for example, how many white students with top grades and SAT scores find no place in any of them? (This argument is best put forth in William Bowen and Derek Bok's The Shape of the River, a book wrongly considered the last word on Affirmative Action but which does have some good points.) Where is the "racism" here in any useful or coherent sense?
But then, the idea that when people of color don't do well on a test, the test must be deigned "discriminatory" - where that word is intended to mean of "unjust" (i.e. "racist") impact on said people -- is equally incoherent. Social history leaves some groups with less immediately available chops in excelling on standardized tests and in other areas (as I have argued), and the solution is to identify why, as Richard Nisbett's new book does, rather than fashion a rhetorically athletic claim that the task in question is "racist." As long as other explanations for the discrepancy exist and have been argued for by people who evidence no signs of mental debility or sinister intention, then facile claims of "racism" qualify as either cynical rhetoric or blinkered alarmism.
In a recent op-ed, Jonah Goldberg is sadly correct that liberals "invite everyone to a big, open-minded conversation, but the moment anyone disagrees with them, they shout ‘racist' and force the dissenters to figuratively don dunce caps and renounce their reactionary views. Then, when the furor dies down, they again offer up grave lamentations about the lack of ‘honest dialogue'."
I have argued that the reason for this is that what is meant by "honest dialogue" is an acknowledgment that racism remains the warp and woof of America. In an America that has elected a black President by a wide margin, that conception of a "dialogue" on race is indeed obsolete. However, those on the right do the country they claim such a love of no favors by falling into the same knee-jerk claims of "racism" they so revile from the other side.
One cannot claim a greater insight into the nature of our conversation on race while assailing Sonia Sotomayor as a racist for saying that growing up as a poor person of color might enhance the ethical dimensions of one's legalistic reasonings in a multiethnic society riddled with socioeconomic inequality.
Make no mistake--you might decide that she is mistaken. But tarring her as a "racist"? We may not be "post-racial," but surely we can do better than this.
15 comments
I generally agree with this article. However, you say: "There is indeed a certain smugness in [Sotomayor's] statement, as if to be a middle-class white person is to inherently lack the empathy, imagination, or just intelligence to filter one's judgments through walking in other people's shoes."
In point of fact, Judge Sotomayor expressly repudiated that inference, stating that she "believe[s] 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 [v. Board of Education]."
- dhurtado
June 9, 2009 at 8:27pm
...As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me,...
As Anderson the Spider Silva pointed out to me...
- basman
June 10, 2009 at 10:18am
The Republicans have been deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting Sotomayor's comment for political gain. For one thing, in print, they leave off the beginning of the sentence and do not even bother to reflect the omission with the appropriate punctuation. If they are going to delete the opening "I would hope that", then their quote should begin like this
"....a wise Latina woman with....",
and not like this
"A wise Latina woman...."
The first few words are key to her meaning. She does not declare that Latinas have the edge. She expresses the hope that a wise Latina, having had the experience of of being discriminated against both as a woman and a hispanic, would be very motivated to avoid discriminatory behavior herself, and that that might serve to improve the quality of her legal judgements. That is how I interpret her aspirational statement.
If a Jew who had experienced the horror of confinement in a concentration camp said, "I would hope that a wise Jew who knows the evil of concentrations camps firsthand would be more reluctant than others to consign anyone to such a horrific fate," he would not be suggesting that Jews are inherently more compassionate and ethical than others, but rather that he hoped that an individual could wrest moral improvement from the horrors experienced.
- kerFuFFler
June 10, 2009 at 10:30am
the hell does 'warp & woof' mean? McWhorter's articles need to be translated into modern English, so someone other than the hyperliterate can understand them... ;)
- porkido
June 10, 2009 at 12:47pm
pork - "the warp and woof" is kinda like the preindustrial version of Application Program Interface, but with a nice iambic meter and (linguistic, not racial) anglo-saxon alliteration.
A modest proposal for those who like me would dearly like to hear a no-BS, grown-up, respectful "national dialogue" on the mess that is aff action in 21c America: please tell us what you think is a rational, fair and effective admissions policy for the University of California, given the following social realities:
-- the UC applicant pool now encompasses every possible racial category, including a very large number of mixed asian-nonasian, hispanic-nonhispanic, black-nonblack etc applicants-- should they get partial preference? To what degree? Should OJ Simpson's kids receive racial preference? Tom Sowell's? Is it fair to privilege Nicole Simpson or John Sowell or other upper-middle class kids from favored racial groups over higher-scoring, smarter working class kids who do not belong to a favored group?
-- those racial categories which the UC admissions system deems privileged exclude serveral prominent groups that have suffered, and continue to suffer, significant racial and/or discrimination (arabs, japanese, chinese, sikhs etc)-- why so?
-- despite decades of aff action, the favored groups continue to perform far worse than their peers both in terms of admissions and post-admission school performance (grades, graduation levels), suggesting that the policy is not even seriously helping many of its intended beneficiaries. How do you intend to turn this around?
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 2:44pm
Porkido, you are referring to this sentence in McWhorter's piece:
"I have argued that the reason for this is that what is meant by "honest dialogue" is an acknowledgment that racism remains the warp and woof of America."
"Warp" and "woof", as I have heard those words, have to do with different kinds of sounds produced bby musical amplifiers and speakers. McWhorter apparently means that liberals believe that racism permeates American society, and by "open dialogue" they mean acceptance of that proposition. Anyone who does not agree is labeled a "racist." I did not take issue with that characterization of what is meant by "open dialogue" because I have taken issue with it elswhere and it is not the central thesis of this piece by WcWhorter, which is that Sotomayor's remarks were not racist.
I sincerely doubt that McWhorter has done any kind of systematic data-gathering to support his claim about what liberals think about race in America. But that is not the subject of this post.
- dhurtado
June 10, 2009 at 2:57pm
Porky,
warp and woof refer to the fibers oriented perpendicularly to one another in woven fabric. Cloth is still woven in this time honored way, so the terms are hardly archaic or obsolete.
- kerFuFFler
June 10, 2009 at 3:09pm
kerFuFFler, I'd argue that because most people (certainly, more TNR readers) probably don't know too much about how their fabrics are made, "warp and woof" may be anachronistic. Although they still exist, their knowledge is limited to people in the cloth-making industries, or people who like to make their own cloth.
But then again, I thought that it was warp and weft.
- bigfish
June 10, 2009 at 5:17pm
teplukhin2you: "...a rational, fair and effective admissions policy..."
As a start...
(1) think as much about class than race (noting that this would require a grown-up discussion about class - and class immobility, for example - in America) and
(2) continue to recognise that there are geographical disparities in primary/secondary education (and not just social environments, as McWhorter implies) that correlate with the distributions of different racial groups, and that those need to be fixed.
- SMacEachern2
June 10, 2009 at 5:21pm
At least McWhorter's use of the term provoked a discussion about it. I don't think that it was the best phrase in that context ("dyed into the fabric" maybe?) but it's not a completely obscure term, and has a certain heft to it.
I wonder when "stuck in the groove" is going to sound completely foreign to people who don't know what a vinyl sound recording is.
- ironyroad
June 10, 2009 at 9:14pm
OK, perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about regarding "warp and woof," but I think we all got the gist of what McWhorter is saying.
Tep, "affirmatiive action" is only one of many subjects that could be part of a national dialogue about race. But with regard to your question about affirmative action at UC, perhaps you could answer a few factual questions:
(1) Has Proposition 208 been repealed? Didn't Prop 208 cause the discontinuance of affirmative action at UC?
(2) Over the past 5 years or so, what has been racial/national-origin composition of the applicant pool for the several different schools at UC (including with respect to arabs, japanese, chinese, sikhs, and any other groups you regard as relevant), and what has been the composition of the admissions to those schools?
(3) Assuming that UC does still employ some form of affirmative action, what precisely is that form? Does UC have certain numerical or percentage targets for the racial composition of its student bodies? Does it set aside a certain number or percentage of spots for each of several groups? Or is its program more like the program at the University of Michigan that the Supreme Court upheld, i.e., the use of race, etc., as a plus-factor to be considered among many others in making admissions decisions?
(4) Are there data or other sources you can point to demonstrating that "the favored groups continue to perform far worse than their peers both in terms of admissions and post-admission school performance"?
(5) Can you share with us any specific examples of someone like OJ Simpson's child being admitted to UC persuant to an affirmative action program in preference over a working-class non-minority with otherwise better credentials? If so, is there evidence that this kind of outcome is pervasive rather than an anomoly?
I admit to ignorance about affirmative action at UC. But I think a thoughtful response would need to start with answers to the foregoing questions.
- dhurtado
June 10, 2009 at 11:16pm
kerFuFFler , et al. (except for teplukhin, who got it):
I wuz just funnin' Mickey Dub about a past post...I know more weavers than you can imagine, being originally from the Bay Area...
- porkido
June 11, 2009 at 2:00am
"-- those racial categories which the UC admissions system deems privileged exclude serveral prominent groups that have suffered, and continue to suffer, significant racial and/or discrimination (arabs, japanese, chinese, sikhs etc)-- why so?"
To compare Sikhs and Blacks, as racial groups seeking admission to an American university, seems a bit disingenuous...and looking for Chinese kids at California state universities seems...um, fruitful...
- porkido
June 11, 2009 at 2:15am
With regard to my post above, the correct reference is to California Proposition 209, not 208. Wikipedia notes the following aboiut Prop 209:
"Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools,[1] which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,[2] and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.[1]
"While African American graduation rates at UC Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,[2] the enrollment rates dropped significantly[1]. Criticism was made of the fact that of the 4,422 students in UCLA's freshman class of 2006, only 100 (2.26%) were African American[2]. In fact, opponents of Proposition 209 note that there are greater disparities in elite education in the post-Proposition 209 era due to decreased African American and Latino enrollment. Proponents, on the other hand, note that Asian American enrollment rates dramatically increased at a majority of UC campuses. [3]"
To the extent that data is accurate, it may indeed suggest that there were problems with affirmative action as it was practiced at UC. But it is different than the proposition that blacks and Hispanics performed worse in terms of both admissions and school performance despite the employment of affirmative action.
- dhurtado
June 11, 2009 at 10:35am
Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” line is worth some comment beyond that which I ventured a while ago.
- Anonymous
July 17, 2009 at 10:24am