Empathy and Reason

Empathy vs. objectivity, reason vs. subjectivity, we’ve heard much of this in the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And I am led to wonder once again, what in the name of self-righteousness this all means

Much of the pre-hearing hype from folks like Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was concern that Judge Sotomayor’s empathy represented a bias that made her unfit for Supreme Court Judgeship. And I wondered then how these same hypesters reconciled the shift in the Court’s decisions of the last 15 years that have rolled back legal precedents on civil, labor, and consumer rights. During the hearings, former Republican and still current Senator Specter of Pennsylvania spoke of the mountain folks have made of the mole hill, empathy. He pointed out that were it not for empathy in legal interpretations of the constitution, we would still have slavery and Judge Sotomayor would not be sitting before the Committee precisely because she is a Latina Women, wise or otherwise.

Ironically, as the hearings ended, Senator Sessions and others who complained of Sotomayor’s empathetic bias whined because she wouldn’t reveal any biases in answering their biased questions. (I was beginning to expect one of these professed keepers of moral purity and “family values” to ask whether or not she believed one should pay taxes to Caesar).

Several years ago I watched a talk show that trotted out a panel that included a representative of a white supremist organization that subjugated manipulated statistics of their own creation to prove “with reason” the inferiority of “non-whites”. In fact they portrayed themselves as non-racist because they presented their bigotry as being based on “reasoned evidence”. Also on that panel was an African American civil rights veteran, who understandably became impassioned in his response to the “reasoned” nonsense that was oozing forth in cool demeanor from what I reasoned was a soulless shell of pasty arrogance. The response from the wannabe virtual bigot was to point to the emotional displays of the civil rights worker as proof of “non-whites”, inability to deal with “reasoned” truth. It was a vicious and ugly cycle.

A few weeks ago I received a copy of the May/June issue “Theology Matters”, the newsletter mouthpiece of the “Presbyterian Coalition”, a coalition of Presbyterians against homosexuality. Although they are self described as a coalition advocating the theological integrity of the Presbyterian Church USA it is their fear and ignorance of GLBT people that created and sustains this grouping of people who in all likelihood might disagree on everything else. The lead article in this newsletter is titled, “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles”. In the opening paragraphs of the first subsection titled Executive Summary we get this:

"In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four developments are especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage. The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage. Too often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason."

Note the inclusion of “same-sex marriage” in the paragraph listing developments that have weakened marriage. That inclusion (not the kind of inclusion we are struggling for), we are led to believe, is “reasoned” and “rational” just because this group, that refuses to hear any arguments other than its own, says so.

In an interview on NPR’s radio program Market Place Betsey, Stevenson, Assistant Professor of Business and Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, referred to a comment Chief Justice Roberts made in his confirmation hearings: “The role of a Supreme Court Judge is much like the role of a baseball umpire.”

Professor Stevenson referenced a study where computers were used to measure the accuracy of umpires’ calls on balls and strikes. A striking phenomenon was revealed. When pitchers and umpires were of the same race, the pitcher almost always won the game. The opposite was true when the races differed. And likewise in basketball; white refs called more fouls on black players and very often ignored obvious fouls by white players. The opposite was true of black refs.

Justice Roberts’ believes he is as objective as a baseball umpire. He is.

Bias is most dangerous when it is unacknowledged. And religious groups are as adept at hiding unacknowledged bias behind “reasoned” theology as Senators from Alabama are with their reasoned bigotry.

Thank God for wise Latina women.

Think I’m not being reasonable? I never claimed I was!

John