Monday, June 1, 2009

Juan Williams, Sonia Sotomayor, and me.

How do you know when it's a good time to speak up? What if it doesn't matter? What if it never matters? How do you know what to say? What if you say something stupid, or you offend someone? How hard should you work to get it "just right?" What if you wasted an entire day when you should be finding a job? How do you decide which cause most deserves your time and energy (e.g., Sotomayor or Prop 8)? What if nobody cares anyway?

Today I spent too much time on Facebook:

> I marveled at Laura Kanter's tireless efforts toward defeating Prop 8, as evidenced by her Orange County contingent at last Saturday's Meet In The Middle rally in Fresno, and her multiple Facebook postings today.
> I was impressed by Megan Caron's letter to the editor supporting marriage equality in NH.
> Holley Daschbach's FB comment about Rush Limbaugh jogged my memory & prompted me to comment on my FB page that I was shocked to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting right-wing talking points re: Sonia Sotomayor's alleged "racism" on NPR's Sat. Weekend Edition.
> I received comments in reply that supported Juan Williams' position (!).
> I wrote a letter to the NPR Ombudsman expressing my disappointment with their willingness to jump on the topsy-turvy bandwagon where the Latina is the dangerously ethnocentric racist, but apparently it isn't relevant to consider the fact that 106 out of 110 Supreme Court justices have been white & male.

Here's my letter...

TO: NPR OMBUDSMAN
FROM: LAWRENCE EATON
DATE: 6/1/09

I was disappointed to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting Rush Limbaugh on Saturday’s Weekend Edition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104750981&ft=1&f=1001

Simon framed their discussion of the Sotomayor "controversy" by asking what would happen if a white male judge said, "I would hope that a wise white man (etc.)...." Williams replied that "...on the face of it Scott, you'd have to say that her language… was racist."

I'm not objecting to NPR's regurgitation of right wing talking points per se. (See http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013) I'm concerned about the lack of context or critical analysis.

I believe the Simon/Williams exchange rests on false premises: First, that a similarly worded hypothetical remark by a white judge would be equivalent in meaning and impact to the Sotmayor statement. Second, that acknowledging the benefits of a worldview shaped by minority status is an indication of “racism.” By accepting these premises uncritically, NPR distorted the meaning of Sotomayor's speech.

This view maintains a façade of credibility only by ignoring the nearly total dominance of white males throughout the Supreme Court’s history and the degree to which the Court’s reasoning and decisions have been undeniably influenced by the life experiences and collateral worldviews of lifelong members of the dominant culture. (106 out of 110 white male judges weren’t racist, but Sotmayor is?)

I was surprised to hear NPR commentators focusing on this phantom controversy while neglecting to define racism or discuss the actual history of race and gender-based bias on the Court. At best, this discussion lacked the kind of critical analysis we depend on NPR to provide. At worst, it is evidence that mainstream discourse about racism is consistently framed in a way that favors the dominant culture’s self-serving distortions.

I expect that kind of thing from Rush Limbaugh, but do NPR commentators really lack the insight to ask “is anything wrong with this picture?”

No comments:

Post a Comment