Did Someone Say Uppity Or Was That Just My Imagination?

Can we imagine a white male nominee to the Supreme Court being asked how his race or gender clouds his judgment or gives him unfair bias in applying and upholding the rule of law? The degree to which this scenario is outrageous, funny, or unthinkable is the degree to which those identities are the invisibilized norm, the standard against which all else is measured as being “too much”, “too little”, “too strange”, “biased”, “other”. I love the insight of writer Adrienne Rich, “In a patriarchal society, ‘objectivity’ is the name we give to male subjectivity.” This applies as well to race and ethnicity in the United States, where whiteness is rarely named, let alone scrutinized as a historically constructed identity that grants unearned power and privilege. Yet in the public scrutiny of Sotomayor, it is made glaringly evident that whiteness = objectivity, impartiality, neutrality. What is implied screams loudly.

I have been having Reverend Wright flashbacks. Historic change is always met with resistance and fear and loathing by some segments of the population. The hysterical, predictable fear and hate-mongering mirrors the controversy surrounding him (and by targeted association Obama) in the presidential election campaign. Again taking one quote out of context, and repeating it endlessly with associations of “anti-Americanism” and “racial bias”, the specter of the unpatriotic angry “other” within coming for vengeance, not a nice, fully assimilated figure that is non-threatening and easily digestible by white people and power structures. Obama brilliantly handled the inflamed situation, and was eventually elected. Sotomayor was subjected to tremendous “white bias”, put on the defensive for making a comment about pride in her identity and ability as a Latina, and will sit on the Supreme Court. It is interesting that out of the 500+ speeches that she has given over the years, there was only one singled out for controversy, yet which was falsely multiplied as people kept referring to her various speeches meaning the “wise Latina” one.  This parallels the collective white power-holder panic in the face of change and the use of one comment (“God damn America”) to attempt a character assassination as with Rev. Wright.

The flood of (overt to subtle) bigoted comments directed at Sotomayor have attempted to shine a harsh spotlight on her “bias”, her “temper”, her “irrationality,” yet it seems to me that all they have been truly commenting on is the speakers’ own racism and sexism. Take Sotomayor as an individual out of the picture, and what have many of her interrogators been saying? They have been talking about themselves, using her as a projection screen to (whether consciously or not) broadcast their biases and worldviews. Some of the more egregious comments have included “bigot”, “domineering”, “school marm”, “affirmative action pick”, “angry woman” (which was also said of Michelle Obama, and it says something that “angry” is considered an insult or unbecoming for a woman), “Hispanic chick lady”, and “let’s hope the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something.” These comments temporarily subside, but the racist and sexist worldview that upholds them does not. I think it is important to pause and reflect on the deeply ingrained attitude of white (and) male bias.

Reverse racism does not exist. It only exists if one sees racism as personal prejudices, nothing more. Many white people view it as such. I find useful the definition Racism = Prejudice + Power. With that definition, to call Sotomayor “racist” is absurd in the extreme. Rachel Maddow pointed out that 108 out of 110 Supreme Court justices have been white. Sotomayor was marking her ethnic and gender identity, and calling it positive, an asset. Not allowed! From conservative to liberal, everytime her “speeches” were relentlessly referred to, I kept hearing ghostly echoes of “uppity”:  OK, be a Latina, have a name that sounds different and all that, but be white on the inside, do not assert your difference, or if you must, do not say it is powerful in any way. Keep down. This was the message I received, which had less to do with Sotomayor and everything to do with her “impartial” accusers. I cringed and shuddered listening to parts of the confirmation hearing, feeling like she was being publicly castigated for failing to appropriately perform deference to a white male culture and legal system.

The “sky is falling” terror of change towards becoming a more truly multicultural, inclusive, equitable society, always strikes me as somewhat crazy when the folks who have the most privilege posture as if in reality they are the oppressed minority (such as O’Reilly’s “War on Christmas” rampage in response to a social shift of saying “happy holidays” to be more respectful and inclusive. A linguistic move towards becoming a little less Christocentric as a nation and it is framed as a “War on Christmas.” And Christmas, if only because it is the biggest consumer holiday of the year, is certainly in no danger of extinction in this country any time soon). The pattern comes into focus in different ways. When the group who has historically wielded the most power is being asked to become more equitable and just, it is portrayed as an assault. How many times did I hear commentators and senators reiterate that Sotomayor must not try to change the law but abide by it? Again, U.S. history shows that many laws were formed to establish, uphold, and modify a system of white supremacy, yet “the law” is talked about as being derived from the heavenly wellspring of objectivity and neutrality. From her moderate, mainstream ruling history she hardly strikes me as a judicial activist, and yet what they were saying seemed less to be about her as an individual, but more about making the statement that any minority should assimilate fully into the system and not try to change it since our legal system is the pinnacle of fairness.   

In our media landscape, what representations do we see of an age-mature wise Latina? Personally I am hard pressed to name a few. Now we have a formidable one to add to the short list. Where do we see representations of white male power-holders, history makers, and leaders considered “wise” (at least by themselves)? Just about everywhere you look. Nearly 100% of Justices have been white and male -- no possible bias there? No particular perspective or history or identity or lens that might make them favor their own, and be sympathetic to certain groups? Sotomayor was predictably asked if she would have special sympathies for immigrant cases, sympathy being a serious cloud of judgment (again the implication that white males are a cloudless sky? A blank slate of legal fairness?). Could we imagine a white male judge, conservative or liberal, from a financially well-off background being asked if his natural sympathies for CEOs might come in the way when deciding on certain cases? During the hearing one senator scolded her like a misbehaving schoolchild for the “wise Latina” remark, saying that no white man could have ever gotten away with that, and she is lucky (and should be grateful) it did not end her career. What is equal in this comparison? Do white men need to assert that they are powerful, wise, qualified, deserving? No, they can just continue being the overwhelmingly dominant majority on the Court and in other influential institutions. What in the senators’ remarks was more about showcasing their own values and narrow-casting to their constituencies?

I have never before listened to a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice, and imagine they are always an intense raking over the coals, and that it is not unusual for senators to also use them to also broadcast their stances with an eye on their own political careers. However another moment gave me serious pause. One senator who was a major accuser of Sotomayor’s unfair bias, asked what her reaction was on September 11th. I was stunned. What does this have to do with her judicial history? Her patriotism and Americanness were put on trial in that moment. She said the only acceptable thing to say, “It was the most horrifying day of my life”, and the senator, who sounded like a War On Terror enthusiast, used the moment to go on to talk about how the world that the hijackers envision would have abysmal human rights for women, and is Sotomayor aware both of the situation of women’s rights in the Muslim world and how much more liberated we are in the U.S.? What is this saying? That she and other women should be grateful of how good they have it here, no need to be an “activist”, and that we should all be reminded of our rationale for military invasion in the Middle East?

Sotomayor’s strong presence, cool-headed responses and unshakeable dignity were an inspiration for me to witness, and I am proud of our president for this nomination. I hope that charges of “reverse racism” are recognized for the bigoted hysteria that they are, and that we see white bias and white male bias as particular perspectives that have for way too long universalized themselves as the norm for humanity and attempt to hide their particularity in the shadows by pointing the spotlight on a minority who signals change. What is a cloud of judgment and what is a lens that allows us to see the sky in a different way? How is our collective vision expanded with eyes that have learned to see and navigate multiple worlds, striving for a more just one?