Cross posted at Everyday Politics. (a student/textbook blog)
In 2001, at the University of California at Berkeley, Sonia Sotomayor said, "I
would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a
white male who hasn't lived that life."
Sotomayor has been nominated for the Supreme Court by President
Obama. She is under much scrutiny as the public tries to guess how she
will rule on hot button issues, such as Affirmative Action, abortion,
immigration, and church-state issues. That 2001 statement has been the
focus of much controversy in the past couple of weeks.
In that
speech, Sotomayor seems to say that her background enabled her to have
a unique understanding of the nuances in cases that involved minorities
and women. A judge with a different background would not be as
sensitive.
Rush Limbaugh
has been quick to call her a racist for those remarks, but her comments
can not be brushed off so easily. It taps into an old debate in
America. Does race and gender influence decision-making?
In political science, we use the terms, descriptive representation and substantive representation.
Descriptive representation is
the belief that political representatives should reflect the ethnic and
gender composition of their constituency. A representative from the
Harlem district should be black, while the representative from Utah
should be white and Mormon. In addition, the entire body should be 50%
female.
Substantive representation is the belief that
representatives should reflect the political preferences of their
constituencies, and their skin color and gender are irrelevant. An old
white guy can effectively advocate for the needs of a poor, minority
population.
In one study, Carol M. Swain explored this issue by
looking at Congressional voting decisions. She found that liberal white
members of Congress represented black interests as strongly as did
black representatives. Liberal white Congressmen had nearly the same
voting records as their black counterparts.
However, these
findings may not necessarily be applied to Supreme Court justices.
Decision making may be more simple for members of Congress than Supreme
Court judges. They are able to mirror decision making of their
colleagues, and they have case work and the need for reelection to keep
them very attuned to their constituency's needs. A Supreme Court has
few colleagues and no regular contact with the public. In that case,
perhaps the need for descriptive representation is more critical.
This
matter is far from settled. It will be interesting to see if this
matter is discussed during the confirmation hearings over the summer.
Apt. 11d 
Though I represent nobody, I’m trying to work on how I can better understand those who come from different backgrounds than myself. The other night, I watched a segment of “How It’s Made” that covered curling stones. Though I’m sure I’ll never fully understand, I like to think I’m closer to knowing what makes a Canadian tick having seen just how much effort they use to get a rock just perfect for sliding on the ice with a broom.
LikeLike
I think that most of the time, class trumps race or gender. But every now and again, something happens which makes me realise that descriptive representation is important. For me, that was a vote a couple of years ago here in Australia on whether RU 486 (an abortion drug) should be legalised for importation. In a rare free vote (most Australian votes are strictly on party lines) 90% of women voted for it – about 50% of men.
LikeLike