There's No Such Thing as "Race," but Plenty of Racism

Senator Ted Cruz called President Biden’s promise to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court “an insult to Black women.” Mississippi’s Roger Wicker insisted Biden’s appointee will be a “beneficiary” of affirmative action. “I want a nominee who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog.” said Judiciary Committee member John Kennedy.

New Mexico recently had an independent, advisory commission on reapportioning legislative and congressional districts after the 2020 census. Many of us observed that, as usual, none of the nine members lived south of Belen. If the governor promised to appoint at least two southern New Mexicans, would that “insult” us?

These jackasses would say, “That’s different. That’s geographical, not ethnic or gender-based. Correct, but just as southern New Mexicans would bring a unique view to that commission, a Black woman brings a fresh and underrepresented perspective to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re not racist,” the jackasses protest. But they never objected to Trump’s promise to name a woman to the Court. Unless they dared not say in front of wives and daughters that women were inferior, they are betraying a belief that no Black woman could measure up. How is that not racist? In any case, I’d love to put any of them in a room with Staci Abrams. She’s one of the most intelligent politicians, including all genders and ethnicities.

If these folks really believe what they’re saying, they think Blacks are simply not as intelligent (or as capable of wisdom and good judgment) as whites. This is the legacy of the “race” concept Europeans had to invent to justify enslaving Blacks in the modern world, particularly under Christianity. It has no scientific reality.

If Cruz and Wicker feel unfairly excluded, because this specific seat will not go to a fellow white man, they might consider the Blacks, Hispanics, women, Asians, and others for whom unfair exclusion has been the predominant fact of life in the United States. (I haven’t heard any female Republican U.S. Senator object.)

In fact, what these gentlemen feel is annoyance that anyone other than an extreme conservative may be appointed to the Supreme Court; that their 6-3 majority won’t grow to 7-2 this year; and that they must oppose Joe Biden’s selection on any grounds available. “Race” is always quite handy. They hold that popular views on justice, ethnic and gender equality, and women’s health choices are too dangerous to let Justices hold.

Why should Biden add a Black woman to the Court? Because he can: there are highly-qualified candidates, and there’d be more but for historical racism. Because a Black woman brings a new perspective, and experiences the other justices have not shared, and the ability to inspire a new generation, particularly young Black girls. When I was in law school, the school observed only its 25^th year anniversary of the admission of the first woman; and there were almost no female professors. A Black professor who’d gone there had plenty to say about the school’s earlier disregard for Blacks.

A recent internet meme showed our nation’s history with a long red line marking the centuries of slavery, a yellow line marking the century of segregation that followed, and a short green line marking the period from 1960 to 2020. It was sobering. I commented that the green line should have been a shade between green and yellow, because racism remains.

Cruz’s Wicker’s, and Kennedy’s recent comments are examples.

                                        – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 13 February, 2022, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[It now looks possible that, as my radio colleague Walt Rubel has predicted all along, Biden’s nominee may win a handful of Republican votes. I’ve guessed that while that might happen if confirming her was going to happen anyway (that is, a party-lines 50-50 Senate vote with the vice-president breaking the tie), it wouldn’t if, at the time of the vote, the Democrats are still down a senator because of our junior senator’s stroke. (Biden has narrowed the field to three. None are ideologues, and all are qualified, and one in particular is noted for bringing folks together.) That not being too visibly progressive may win confirmation is nice; but it continues the trend that while Democrats nominate good judges who aren’t extremely progressive, the Republicans, in the Federalist Society’s pocket, nominate extremists mostly. Something seems wrong with that picture.]