But you too are reading a lot more in than what was said.

I've already indicated that I don't think the speech is a big deal. I think the ideas expressed are pretty typical in political circles and pretty accepted. I think they're problematic and I'm less inclined to be as generous in my interpretation of what she really meant than you.

I don't think it matters very much.

I don't think I am. True, she didn't describe other experiences as rich and varied, but she also did not describe them as uniform or bland. I think the import of her speech as a whole is what I've said before -- everyone comes from a his or her own ethnic and experiential background and it is counter-productive to pretend that doesn't have an effect on decision-making.

I think what I might be doing is reading it like a lawyer -- that is interpreting what she said through a legal/jurisprudential lens rather than a political lens. Maybe that's leading to the way I (and, I think, other lawyers/law students) are understanding her comments.

I don't either, so why are we talking about it? :D

Seriously, I'm not nearly as concerned about what she said as i am about the totally a-contextual spin it has been getting in some circles. Again, maybe it's the lawyer in me, but trying to make major hay out of a sentence or two while ignoring the context of that sentence is what drives me bonkers.

Let's try this:

A. Women of color have markedly different life experiences than white males.
B. These experiences are thus unique.
C. In some instances, having a certain unique experience is a boon to an individual (in terms of decision making).
D. In few instances is a lack of a certain experience a 'boon' to an individual (it may be 'better' than not having it in the way that 0 is better than -5, but almost never is it a net benefit; limited to decision making).
E. Tying these together, all things being otherwise equal, having an experience is generally better than not having that experience.
F. Taking this to her logical conclusion, having an experience would hopefully lead to better judicial decisions than not having that experience.

What part of this do we disagree with? It seems very straightforward, almost to the point of being lame or tautological, mostly because it is pie-in-the-sky to the point of worthlessness (but certainly not because it is "racist", race-baiting, or even unnecessarily makes assumptions about race or gender).

[ETA at the top with bullet points that respond more directly]

- No individual is without some unique individual experience, even if that person is a white male.

- There may be no reason to assume that the legal decisions based on the unique experiences of women of color will likely be better more often than not that any individual white guy, whose own experiences are likely to be rich and varied.


I suppose I don't agree with the idea that a Latina's unique experience is as individually valuable judicially as Sotomayor seems to believe it is. I don't regard it as a hindrance, certainly, but the value of different experience, if there is one, exists in terms of what that experience contributes to a diverse body. (And I'm afraid that it's often overstated in terms of the contributions it makes to those. How is Clarence Thomas's blackness working out?)

Bringing a unique set of cultural experiences, which I think we all have no matter what race or ethnicity or culture, isn't an individual asset likely to yield better individual results over some hypothetical person with a different unique set of cultural experiences. You can really only compare this individual with that individual. You can't compare this individual with the richness of her cultural experience with a hypothetical white dude and conclude or reasonably hope that her conclusions are likely to be better because there is no hypothetical white dude who isn't bringing his own decision making assets or deficits as the individual case may be.

The comment is generating the out of context hype is it because it can't be turned around an appear neutral or positive. If it would clearly be "racist" if assert about a white guy, it's suspicious when asserted by someone else. ("I would hope that a white guy with the richness of his experience would more often than not make a better decision than a Latina without the same experience" seems wrong on the face of it.) It appears to be a claim that asserts the superiority of a person based on that person's race or ethnicity, and generally we're not down with that these days.

You mean like a body that's never had a Hispanic woman among its members? I think you're on the right track here - you are certainly allowed to feel she's overrating this (and again, the "I hope..." takes the edge off), but that doesn't change the fact that you're basically validating the comment here.

Yes you can compare.

See how easy that is? Why can't you? I think you certainly can, and to deny it seems very head-in-sand-ish about racial issues in the United States and the comparative differences between being white and being, well, not white.

The quotation has nothing at all to do with "superiority."

Besides this, the statement WOULD be ridiculous about a white guy, because it is literally impossible for the statement, in its context, to apply to a white guy because it is a strict comparison.

This is beside the fact that it apparently CAN be neutral - I think it's exactly neutral.

This is purposefully obtuse, is it not? The point is that the experiences of being Latina are unique from the overall set by nature of differences that do not exist for whites. Sure, everyone's a unique snowflake, but that's not the point.

There may not be. There may be. She hopes there is. That's the whole point.

Headache.

Is there an overall set of experiences? Are white experiences so uniform that the claim makes sense?

It doesn't to me.

I think that the experience of being Ted Kennedy varies so significantly from the experience of being Eminem, especially pre-success, that it's kind of goofy to lump them together by race and culture and assume that they've shared formative experiences.

Certainly, the shared experience of legal training is going to narrow the gap some, and maybe there's not as profound a variety in the experiences of white guys likely to become judges. But I still think a big sweeping comment about what ethnicity, race, or culture contribute is likely to be pretty faulty.

Did you all see this already?

http://www.slate.com/id/2219699/

It's about how the language we're discussing here is recycled from a previous speech about how the richness of a woman's experience would allow her to reach better decisions and defines better.

What seems oddest to me in the media's discussion is the idea that GOP would be actively trying to come up with a strategy for stalling her. It seems like Obama could have done much worst by GOP assumed standards.

I think KSigRC and KSigkid have done a good job of showing that it can.
Context matters yet again. One has to bear in mind that she was talking primarily about cases involving discrimination. Like I've said before, in that context, the corollary is: I would hope that someone who has experienced discrimination would make a better decision in a case involving discrimination than someone who has not experienced discrimination.

And note how the "I would hope" (with the implied "but it might not") takes care of your Clarence Thomas example, while she specifically refers to cases like Brown to show that she does not view personal experience of being discriminated against as necessary to making the better decision.

Note that the "definition" of "better" comes from a White House aide, not from J. Sotomayor.

WE AGREE! I really don't understand why some among the GOP are trying to stall this, because I agree -- it could have been much worse from their perspective.

In the 1994 speech she defines better herself.

ETA: Slate hyperlinks the paragraphs from both speeches.

My bad. I read the sentence wrong. Thanks.

It's not a really radical definition, and it seems in keeping with what Obama suggested he wanted.

The only thing the repeated speech contributes that it's harder to make the case that she would have expressed it differently, but I don't think that matters much anyway.

I think it's kind of funny, but not really surprising, that sometimes it's just being female that makes the difference and sometimes it's being Latina depending on who the audience is. Wouldn't it be more interesting to make the claim to an audience that wasn't expecting exactly what they would hear? To tell a group of diverse women that it's being Latina that makes the difference? To tell a Latina/Latino audience that being a woman is enough to offer hope of better decisions. If the claim is as valid as it's supposed to be, why not?

I'd still chalk that up to context. If I'm talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, I'm going to focus on how being a Scout influences my perspective on things. If I'm talking to a bunch of people over 6 feet tall, I'm going to talk about how being tall influences my perspective on things.

Sort of an aside: there is research that suggests that in states where judges are elected, all other things being equal more voters tend to favor a female over a male.

Sure, but even though you were talking to Scouts you probably wouldn't address the Scouts' attitude toward gays. There's something about appropriateness, but there's something about playing it safe with the audience you've got too. It's completely normal and expected, but for some reason, it amuses me in this case.

I don't think that most people in the abstract have a bias against women judges, so your second point isn't really surprising. Most of the time, I think voters imagine that women will be outside of any Good Ol' Boys network, and I think that's what they are hoping for in judges.

(I do think that employees tend to be ridiculously hard on most females in superior employment positions, but that's neither here nor there in this case. I'm just noting that in reality/ direct experience, people frequently hold women to different standards than they do men. )