Blog #28

Sonia Sotomayor’s behaviors were characteristic of successful men but since she is a woman they have become sources of criticism rather than accepted as evidence of her readiness to lead. Clearly she is smart: she won Princeton’s highest academic prize. Clearly she is driven: she made to from the South Bronx to an excellent education and federal judgeship. Clearly she sets high standards: she has been demanding, she has asked tough questions and her temper has flared. Each of these characteristics is desirable in a judge but in the critical media she has been demeaned for these very things. The biggest problem is that people readily accept accusations of prejudices they hold. If one thinks that women who succeeds do so because it is the politically correct thing rather than that they are talented, they readily accept accusation that a woman is not really that talented or that prepared. Then when they hear criticism that a woman is that smart they believe it. Rosen, preceded his criticism with the comment that he had not read up on Sotomayor and was not familiar with her judgments but still when he misquoted a circuit court judge to suggest she wasn’t really that smart people who are accept women, and in particular minority women are not that smart, feel affirmed. Secondly, when her background is discussed talent is not considered the cause rather prejudice against white men is sited as the cause for her success. Most glaring however is the ridicule of her demanding style. If a man is now for being “a sharp interrogator who requires lawyers to be ‘on top of it’” he is considered tough. It is considered a good quality. Comparisons to Scalia was made and he was known as strong or sharp. The same behavior in a woman was considered excitable, domineering or bullying. Amazingly temperament rather than talent became a key issue for acceptance. Behavior that is not traditional for women becomes a liability. Sadly, people accept the prejudices they hold without real consideration of the fact behind them.