Condescension toward Sotomayor continues

Image by talkradionews via Flickr

Even more offensive than the overt discrimination directed at Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the subtle condescension that has characterized not only the media coverage of her candidacy, but the behavior of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee toward her, as well:

Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor have risen to the top of their professions being the best students in the class, homework always done, notebooks neat and conduct impeccable. They share the perils of their ascension: The world remains white and male and ready to put a high female achiever back in her place if given half a chance.

No one spoke to Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito the way Senate Judiciary Committee members are speaking to Sotomayor.

via Clinton and Sotomayor Endure Man-Made Perils: Margaret Carlson – Bloomberg.com.

There’s another way to describe how certain Committee members have spoken to Judge Sotomayor: microaggressively.

The term “racial microaggressions” was originally coined in 1970 by Dr. Chester Pierce, a psychiatrist, to describe the (sometimes unconscious) mistreatment and humiliation of Blacks by Whites. But the definition has evolved over time to include behavior exhibited towards women and all people of color.  According to Dr. Derald Wing Sue of Columbia University, microaggresions are subtle behaviors that communicate slights, hostility, insults, or disrespect toward a specific person or group. In other words, they are put-downs that don’t really seem like put-downs—making them all the more challenging to identify and address.

Microaggressions generally fall into three categories: microassaults, an overtly racist act or communication, microinsults, which are demeaning or insensitive behaviors, and microinvalidations, or the negation and invalidation of a person’s life experiences.  The more subtle microaggressions were not only present in Judge Sotomayor’s hearing, but seem to have gone largely unnoticed by the mainstream media.

Insinuations of inferior intelligence

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seemed unconvinced that Judge Sotomayor, a sitting appellate judge, understood specific legal doctrines. So he questioned her on them, praising her when she answered correctly—as if he were her instructor—and consistently interrupting her as she attempted to respond:

It is wholly appropriate for Mr. Graham to ask Judge Sotomayor what a specific legal term means to her, or whether she considers herself to fit into a certain legal category. But the questions testing her legal knowledge are a microinsult.

Next came the memory test:

This is demeaning.  How is it “respectful” when someone who has demonstrated the academic excellence of Judge Sotomayor is asked to make a recitation from memory during Senate Judiciary Committee proceedings? Sounds like something people do in kindergarten. Or perhaps South Carolina. 

Suggestions of intellectual laziness and improper references to ethnicity

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama seemed uncomfortable that the opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano was short:

SEN. SESSIONS: Judge, there was a — apparently unease within your panel. I was really disappointed and I think a lot of people have been that the opinion was so short. It was per curiam. It did not discuss the serious legal issues that the case raised. And I believe that’s legitimate criticism of what you did…

via Transcript – Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings, Day 2 – Text – NYTimes.com.

Mr. Sessions seems to imply that Judge Sotomayor wrote a short decision based on either laziness or an unwillingness to examine the facts, possibly because of bias.  The probleme here is that Judge Sotomayor has written hundreds of opinions since ascending to the appellate bench, and people with her credentials are seriously hard workers. Not to mention that length is not a litmus test for the validity of legal opinions.

Then Mr. Sessions went completely AWOL, and suggested to Judge Sotomayor that she should have voted with another Puerto Rican judge on the Second Circuit, Judge Jose Cabranes:

Wait a minute. Should Judge Cabranes’ ancestry have been a factor in Judge Sotomayor’s decision?  Isn’t this exactly the kind of reasoning that GOP Senators want Judge Sotomayor to avoid?  Note to Mr. Sessions: all Puerto Rican appellate judges do not vote alike. Another microinsult.

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma also got into the act:

It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Coburn was trying to be insulting; his attempt at humor reveals a lack of sensitivity, given the players involved. Not to mention that Ricky Ricardo, who used the phrase on television, was Cuban, not Puerto Rican. Someone needs to tell Mr. Coburn to leave the jokes to Senator Al Franken, because what he did was a microinsult.

The “wise Latina” microinvalidation

Whatever your view of Judge Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” remarks, it is hypocritical for Republican Senators to have spent as much time on that remark as they did.  Consider their lack of objection to the statements of then Judge Samuel Alito at his confirmation hearing:

Senate Republicans were fine with Justice Alito’s expression, but were “concerned” about Judge Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment, arguing that her experiences have no place in the judging process.  What’s the difference? Gender and ethnicity. It’s fine for the Republicans when an Italian (White) male thinks about his ancestry and experiences, because they assume he can remain objective. When a Latina does likewise she is presumed to be biased, because they see her as “different” from them. Ah, the joys of microinvalidation.

By all accounts, Judge Sotomayor will soon be confirmed and will become Associate Justice of the highest court in the land. This bodes well for the future of women of color in our nation. But the subtle put-downs she experienced, these microaggressions, will also endure. It’s time the media stopped pretending not to see them.