FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Sotomayor and the Identity Mountain

In his now-famous essay The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain, Langston Hughes lamented the impulse of Black Harlem Renaissance era artists to shed the “Black” from their work product. At that time, the external imposition of standards of artistic excellence drove many “Negro Artists” to reject the richness of their experience in order to create palatable and racially neutral artwork. For Hughes this was anathema. The American ideal after all was to embrace the richness of difference, rather than neutering it by imposing unfamiliar standards stripped of history, context, and reality.

More than eighty years after Hughes’ essay, the same tensions persist, evidenced by the rhetoric surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the highest court in the land. Her nomination has been branded “identity politics.”  Attacks on Sotomayor suggest that she is not only a product of this “sinister” brand of politics, but a radical proponent. Pundits suggest that background should not factor into judicial calculus and that a “good judge” should detachedly interpret and apply the law; nothing more, nothing less. For Hughes it was race, with Sotomayor it is race with a side of gender and a sprinkling of class: the Identity Mountain.

We have heard repeatedly the poignant narrative that shaped Sotomayor’s identity. She lived an impoverished Bronx childhood, labored her whole life to become a high achiever, and now stands on the precipice of history. What should be hailed as a story of American triumph, however, has been contorted to imply that Sotomayor will engage in “tribal justice,” that her race will be determinative of her judicial outcomes, and that bias will cloud her judgment to the point of ineptitude.

What exactly, though, is this identity politics of which we speak? If the references to identity politics are meant to suggest that Sotomayor’s mode of adjudication will be colored with an agenda for minority enrichment, her record does not support such paranoia. Additionally, Sotomayor’s critics seem to invoke the label of “identity politics” inconsistently, based on whose “identity” they view as receiving an advantage. In his speech on John Roberts’ confirmation vote, then-Senator Obama pointed out that Roberts “has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.” But the same Sotomayor critics continually turn a blind eye when Chief Justice Roberts’ rulings steadfastly safeguard the rich. Similarly, if such references to identity politics are meant to convey the idea that race and gender somehow factored into her nomination, surely political considerations lurk behind each and every appointment; it is politics after all.

If the denunciation of identity politics is meant to buttress the oft-articulated mantra that “justice is colorblind,” then the arguments against Sotomayor still carry little weight. If colorblind justice means that Judge Sotomayor cannot summon her past to inform her present judgment, then such a proposition cannot stand. A justice shorn of experience is a justice of folly, or worse, no justice at all. Such experience prompted Justice Ruth Ginsburg, known for her record of fighting against gender discrimination prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, to deviate from typical practice and read her impassioned dissent in Ledbetter, a decision that made equal pay lawsuits more difficult to file. Such experience also proved a hallmark of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s piercing civil rights analyses. Still yet, the cries for a cloistered judiciary continue to ring loud from these purported friends of justice.

The notion that background in America carries no significance is subtle but dangerous. A clear distinction exists between recognizing and embracing what Jonathan Sacks calls “the dignity of difference,” and insulting this dignity by demanding the erasure of difference. The line between them is easily blurred. We cannot allow this nomination, which represents a moment for a collective national embrace and pride, to be wasted by partisan rancor and hackneyed rhetoric. It should not be tolerated; not now, not ever.

And as for those mountains, all we can ask is that Judge Sotomayor continues to climb as she has so gracefully done thus far. Give us that raw jazz that only Harlem could know. Give us those sublime arias that only a woman could produce. Give us those pain-laden stanzas that only a pen of the projects could construct. Give us American justice, the way it should be.

ALBERT OSUEKE is a law clerk at Advancement Project, a national policy, communications and legal action group committed to racial justice. To watch a video produced by Advancement Project on the negative rhetoric surrounding Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POYA9uev828.  For more information about Advancement Project, go to www.advancementproject.org.  You can email the author at aosueke@advancementproject.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
Ron Jacobs
Impeach!
Lawrence Davidson
A Tale of Two Massacres
José Tirado
A World Off Balance
Jonah Raskin
Something Has Gone Very Wrong: An Interview With Ecuadoran Author Gabriela Alemán
J.P. Linstroth
Myths on Race and Invasion of the ‘Caravan Horde’
Dean Baker
Good News, the Stock Market is Plunging: Thoughts on Wealth
David Rosen
It’s Time to Decriminalize Sex Work
Dan Glazebrook
US Calls for a Yemen Ceasefire is a Cynical Piece of Political Theatre
Jérôme Duval
Forced Marriage Between Argentina and the IMF Turns into a Fiasco
Jill Richardson
Getting Past Gingrich
Dave Lindorff
Not a Blue Wave, But Perhaps a Foreshock
Martha Rosenberg
Dangerous, Expensive Drugs Aggressively Pushed? You Have These Medical Conflicts of Interest to Thank
Will Solomon
Not Much of a Wave
Nicolas J S Davies
Why Yemeni War Deaths are Five Times Higher Than You’ve Been Led to Believe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail