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:
July 19, 2018
Rajai R. Masri
The West’s Potential Symbiotic Contributions to Freeing a Closed Muslim Mind
Jennifer Matsui
The Blue Pill Presidency
Ryan LaMothe
The Moral and Spiritual Bankruptcy of White Evangelicals
Paul Tritschler
Negative Capability: a Force for Change?
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: ‘Social Dialogue’ Reform Frustrations
Rev. William Alberts
A Well-Kept United Methodist Church Secret
Raouf Halaby
Joseph Harsch, Robert Fisk, Franklin Lamb: Three of the Very Best
George Ochenski
He Speaks From Experience: Max Baucus on “Squandered Leadership”
Ted Rall
Right Now, It Looks Like Trump Will Win in 2020
David Swanson
The Intelligence Community Is Neither
Andrew Moss
Chaos or Community in Immigration Policy
Kim Scipes
Where Do We Go From Here? How Do We Get There?
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail