The Cynicism of Sonia Sotomayor
Watching highlights of the Sotomayor hearings, I was reminded of an article in Newsweek that discussed Sotomayor's education at Princeton. In particular, her mentor, Dr. Peter Winn, who has gone to bat for her in the press is quoted.
More important, he [Dr. Peter Winn] taught her critical thinking. Sotomayor had come from a Roman Catholic high school, Cardinal Spellman, where learning was rote and students were taught to obey authority. Winn's rule was simple: "Be critical of everything, especially things you agree with."
Dr. Winn's admonition is, I think, largely correct, but it can also be misleading. Look at the context Newsweek put his rule in. Catholic schools, or at least Cardinal Spellman, is cast as providing rote learning and discouraging independent thinking. Her secular education opened her mind and allowed her to ask questions.
Well, rote learning has a place in education. We don't expect students to "be critical" of the basics of arithmetic as they learn them. Having children memorize times tables, diagram sentences, learn important historical dates, etc. may be tedious, but it instills in them a base of knowledge. Only once they have this base are they able to grapple with complex issues. If you don't know arithmetic, you can't appreciate physics? If you struggle with grammar, how can you appreciate a classic novel? If you have no mental map of American history, how can you intelligently debate American politics?
So, rote learning doesn't preclude critical thinking -- it's a necessary precursor to the complex thought required at a collegiate level. The danger in Winn's quote is that it can leave the false impression -- one that he probably didn't intend -- that we should always, at all times question everything. We certainly should never be afraid to ask questions. but neither should we fall into the trap of believing everything is debatable and that we can never truly know anything.
As Fr. Paul Scalia, son of Justice Antonin Scalia writes, "Academics cannot exist without a confidence in the truth. A commitment to only asking questions produces only cynics. It is the investigation of the truth that produces liberally educated people and scholars."
Is Sotomayor a cynic or a scholar? Her handling of the "Wise Latina" situation suggests that she is a cynic. When pressed, she insisted that her meaning was misunderstood, and the the broader context of her speech would reveal her true intent. This is nonsense. Her statement means exactly what it appears to mean. She repeated the "Wise Latina" line at least five times, so it apparently holds up in multiple contexts. Reading her Berkeley speech in its entirety reveals no clues to an alternate interpretation. A thinking person is left to conclude that she really does hold views indicative of ethnic and gender chauvinism.
When her "context" argument is fleshed out by her allies at Media Matters, we see what "context" really means. They surround her offensive quote with other non-offensive quotes from the same speech, and say, "Ta-da! Context!" Sending your political opponents on a snipe hunt to figure out how context may alter your meaning doesn't enrich anyone's understanding. It's a diversionary tactic to impede productive discussion and thought.
This is the essence of cynicism. We can know nothing. There is no truth. Debate is merely a game of rhetorical oneupsmanship. I guess things really haven't changed since Plato's Gorgias was written.
It's unnerving to think how this affects our judicial process. When cynics are appointed to the bench, they have the potential to confuse even the most elementary aspects of law. If Sonia Sotomayor cannot acknowledge the plain meaning of a sentence that she herself wrote, what will happen when she's asked to interpret the Bill of Rights? Will she deploy the same deceptive debate tactics to achieve her own ends, or will she be faithful to the law? What is fidelity to the law to a cynic? Only time will tell, but I anticipate that Sotomayor's tenure on the bench will be undistinguished by the sort of noble jurisprudence America deserves.