THE COLOR OF WHITE PRIVILEDGE

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court, has just been confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 68 – 31. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted, generally along party lines, to send her name for confirmation. Senator Lindsey Graham (R – S.C.) was the lone Republican vote in the Committee and he is recorded saying, “America has changed for the better with her selection” to the Supreme Court. This statement was not affirmed by his Republican colleagues on either the Committee or in the Senate.

Justice Sotomayor replaces Justice David Souter who retired at the end of the 2008 – 09 Court sessions. She is the 111th Justice appointed to the Bench, the first Latino (Latina) – Puerto Rican) and the third woman. Her educational record is outstanding. She graduated with an A.B., summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1976 and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979. She was editor of the Yale Law Journal during her time in New Haven.

Her work record is also exemplary. Justice Sotomayor served as assistant district attorney in New York and was later appointed a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Her educational experience is of the highest quality from two outstanding educational institutions, her prosecuting skills as a district attorney demonstrated her knowledge and commitment to the law, and her court rulings have all been well within the mainstream of U.S. jurisprudence.

So why would six Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thirty-one members of the full Senate vote against her confirmation? Is it really a difference over legal philosophy? Partisan politics? Visible acts of racism?

Justice Sotomayor has been challenged throughout the confirmation process on the basis of remarks she made when giving a speech where she said: “I would hope that a wise Latina 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.” Public servants do bring their life experiences to public service. They bring who they are to their work and public service is enriched by people of different backgrounds who have different life experiences. The Supreme Court is no exception.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner has publicly recognized and thanked Justice Thurgood Marshal for sharing his experiences as a black man and how the law and law enforcement agents treated him and other people of color differently than whites. People of color all have stories of mistreatment by people in power and Justice O’Conner affirmed how she was influenced by Justice Marshall’s experiences. He never forgot who he was or where he came from and made judicial decisions consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor will bring different experiences to the Court as a Latina but her legal training, prosecutorial experience and court service sets the context within which her decisions on the Supreme Court will be made. Why is her Latina experience an issue for calling into question her capacity for judging legally and fairly cases brought before the Court?

Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, the two justices nominated and confirmed under President Bush, were never asked questions about their ethnicity, about how their whiteness would effect their decision making. Yet their whiteness shapes their experiences and defines who they are as much as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “latinaness” defines her.

Whiteness is the norm of our society. Those of who are white don’t even recognize their privileges... It’s as if an invisible knapsack filled with all kinds of benefits not available to people of color is permanently attached to their backs. White privilege is pervasive and structural and is always hiding in plain sight. Its power is rarely acknowledged in political, economic and social discourse. Whiteness is hardly ever visible but Judge Sotomayor’s “latinaness” was and is acknowledged and made into an issue.

Whiteness is normal and normalcy is invisible. This is at the core of racism. People of color are treated differently because of ethnicity and are assign different levels of power within political, economic and social structures. Whiteness is a blind spot to those of us white. It is an anesthetic that anesthetizes whites to the disadvantages, mistreatment, and pain inflicted on people of color.

So what can the church learn from Justice Sotomayor confirmation experience?

As discrimination and racism is part of the history of the legal system in the United States, so it is with the church. It should be obvious to us that the “whiteness” of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is not accidental. As a church we have participated, throughout our history, in the discrimination and racism prevalent in the American social structures. We invite you to struggle with the Anti-Racism/Pro-Reconciliation Team as we work with “The Rs That Matter: Race and Reconciliation.”

How do we as the church deal with this whiteness that dominates invisibly our individual and congregational lives?

Let us hear from you.

TEAM MEMBERS
Dwight Bailey, chair, Karon Alexander, Brittany Barber, Darron Bowden, Gloria Carey-Branch, Minta Colburn, Ann Marie Coleman, Don Coleman, Ellen Culpepper, Carol Josefowski, Jennifer Kottler, Wookbin Moh, Leila Ward