Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
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.
Threaded Mode
