From the Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, Nov. 4, 2002, found by an FF reader:
“I had enough natural intelligence to get myself through my early education, but at Princeton I found out that my earlier education was not on par with that of many of my classmates. When my first mid-term paper came back to me in college, I found out that my Latina background had created difficulties in my writing that I needed to overcome.”
Although independent and smart, she also knew when to seek academic help. During her years at Princeton, she found the help she needed.
“At that time in my life, as I was meeting all these new and very different people, taking reading classes, and relearning writing skills, Princeton was an alien land for me. I felt isolated from all I had ever known, and very unsure about how I would survive. The Puerto Rican group on campus,
Accion Puertorriquena, and the Third World Center provided me with an anchor I needed to ground myself in that new and different world.”Again, her perseverance paid off. “Because of my work with Accion Puertorriquena, the Third World Center, and other activities in which I participated, like the University’s Discipline Committee, I was awarded the Pyne Prize in my senior year. The kid who didn’t know how to write her first semester was honored for academic excellence and commitment to university
service with that award. When accepting the prize, I said then, and I repeat today, that it was not me who earned or deserved the prize that day; it was the third-world students who preceded me and those who had supported me while I was at Princeton who had created a place for me there and had given me comfort to grow there.“In my years there, Princeton taught me that we people of color could not only survive there, but that we could flourish and succeed. More important, I learned that despite our differences from others at Princeton, we, as people of color with varying ethnic experiences, had become a permanent part at Princeton. It gave much to us, but we gave back to it as well.
“Princeton changed us, not just academically, but also in what we learned about life and the world. At the same time, we changed Princeton by our presence there.”
Sotomayor readily admits that some things did not change about her position in society as a whole.
“The differences from the larger society and the problems I faced as a Latina woman didn’t disappear when I left Princeton. I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of any of the worlds I inhabit.”
Sotomayor believes that wherever one lives, it’s the internal neighborhood — what makes us tick — our collective experiences — that shape us and define where we live privately. She revealed some of her private territory in an acceptance speech at her induction proceedings in the
Ceremonial Courtroom, 9th Floor, U.S. Court House, 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan, back in 1998.“I do not live in the Latina world of my youth. Instead, I have a lovely apartment in a yuppie neighborhood of Manhattan. I have worked in job environments that have been challenging, stimulating, and engrossing, but none of them are controlled by Latinos. As accomplished as I have been in my professional settings, I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up and am always concerned that I have to work harder to succeed.”
She explains the impact of growing up with little money. “This is the pathology of successful Latinos and other successful individuals who come from economically deprived populations. It is hard to enjoy your success and wear it comfortably when the world we have grown up in is filled with friends and sometimes relatives who don’t make it in our society at all.”
At the same time, she believes one must never forget the Latin heritage. “I have also taken solace and comfort and received continued support from keeping myself anchored in my Latina heritage. Despite working and succeeding in non-Latino environments — the Manhattan DA’s Office, a private firm doing international work, a district and now circuit court judge — I have remained
connected to and integrally involved in community activities — Latino and non-Latino groups devoted to serving the underprivileged of our society.”Sotomayor also gives us a glimpse of challenges that different groups face. In the future, she believes some of these challenges will make it harder and harder to hold on to ethnic identities.
“Growing up, all of my family, except those that remained in Puerto Rico, lived in the Bronx within miles of each other. From technological advances, our children will have more opportunities to enjoy, but it will be harder for them to hold on to their ethnic identities. But hold on to them we must because Latinos and all minority and women’s groups, despite what part of the country we live in, face enormous challenges in this society. Affirmative action, human rights, and civil liberties permeate our societal discussions,” she said.
She’s firm in her resolve to keep her identity intact.
“In this time of great debate, we must remember that it is not politics or its struggles that creates a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul.
“They taught me to love both being a puertoriquea and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. Princeton and my life experiences since have taught me, however, that having a Latina identity anchors me in this otherwise alien world, and that achieving happiness as a professional had depended on my valuing and nurturing
both the Latina and American parts of who I am by giving as much as I can to those in need in our society,” she finished.Sotomayor not only has a passionate heart and belief in what she is doing as a public servant, she also does her homework and knows the score. She quoted some numbers during her acceptance speech.
“The needs of our community, the Latino community, are extraordinary — Latinos represent the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. Since 1980, the Latino population has grown about five times as fast as the non-Latino population, and Latinos are expected to be the largest ethnic minority in the U.S. in the 21st century. We number about 20.1 million out of 243.7 million Americans, excluding the 3.5 million people of Puerto Rico,” she said.
13 responses so far
1 Egli Ha // May 1, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Well I oppose affirmative action but I find nothing worrisome in this. A jew might write the same (or very similarly) about beleagured jewish campus advocacy groups in the 1950s. As we assimilate, don’t forget our past etc.
There will, of course, be an effort to make “affirmative-action supporter” into a code-soundbite for anti-hispanic bigotry. Good luck with that.
2 ottovbvs // May 2, 2009 at 7:07 am
What’s the problem with any of this. She’s an immense American success story from a very modest background. She’s just giving a perfectly believable account of what must have been a difficult rite of passage for her. The implied censoriousness that accompanied the publication of this is a symptom of what’s going wrong in the conservative movement. If we can’t like and admire someone like this who seems hyper normal then we’ve got a problem. Same applies to Souter really who has become literally a hate figure on the far right. In fact he’s a moderate Republican from the NE who is modest, intelligent, hard working, loves his home state, someone you’d like to have as friend or neighbor. I suspect Sotamayor will be on the shortlist of two women but I’m coming round to the view that the other lady Kagan will get it. She’s simply got a lot more legal horsepower and made a heck of reputation for herself as scholar, diplomat and manager as dean of the Harvard Law School. It’s fairly obvious Obama is going to have at least two more picks and I suspect he’ll see no problem with having three women on the court.
3 sinz54 // May 2, 2009 at 7:12 am
Egli Ha: Your post epitomizes the Dem approach to this: Immediately stick a “bigot” label on anyone who says anything critical of the nominee’s philosophy. After 40 years of the Left shouting “Racist! Racist!”, that’s really wearing a little stale.
I’m opposed to minority quotas on principle. In this country, we’ve had some really egregious cases where white workers were preferentially fired first, in order to keep more minority workers. In this economy, with unemployment rising, let’s see liberals try to defend that proposition.
I don’t know if Ms. Sotomayor or Ms. Kagan will defend that proposition. Let’s find out.
4 ottovbvs // May 2, 2009 at 7:26 am
sinz54
wrote 8 minutes ago
I agree that AA goes off the rails at times and have probably outworn their usefulness but without them minorities in this country would not have made the advances they have. For every recent abuse I can find earlier egregious ones that disadvantaged minorities. AA laws were part of the process by which we have become a more integrated society without disastrous social upheaval.
5 idrake // May 2, 2009 at 10:59 am
I think the problem with Judge Sotomayor’s statement is that it demonstrates a pre-occupation with victimhood. Her autobiography belies the victimized status she contends Hispanic or Latino women face in American society.
6 tarazeigler // May 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
sinz54: re-read Egil Ha’s post. I think you are seeking to find liberals were there aren’t any.
idrake: do you really want to argue that Latina women haven’t (historically) faced unique challenges in American society?
David, I am really not sure what the point of this post was. I am guessing NM isn’t supportive of this candidate, but I see nothing in this that is really negative. In fact, it sounds like she sought out resources on her own and worked hard to get to her position, with very little structural help. As far I understand it, that is something we should celebrate and encourage. She does talk about the importance of continuing to identify with the Latino community. Do we really take issue with that? In the future, some sort of clarification statement would be helpful when posting outside material.
7 Bulldoglover100 // May 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I told you yesterday David that this would be Obama’s choice…and he chose someone appointed to the bench by George H.W Bush…and yet we still hear childish keening from the wing nutters…..
8 Andy // May 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Frum’s not stating any opinion on what she’s written, he’s just putting it out there. My guess is that the people on the right are complaining about her stance about keeping her heritage. On one hand, you could argue that no other immigrants clung on to their heritages for long, the quickly assimilated into American society. On the other hand, you could argue that the situation is a little different when it comes to Mexicans, since Mexico is right next to us. If it didn’t come down to the different languages being spoken, nobody would probably even notice.
9 A.B. // May 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm
idrake: “the problem with Judge Sotomayor’s statement is that it demonstrates a pre-occupation with victimhood. Her autobiography belies the victimized status she contends Hispanic or Latino women face in American society.” Well said. In other words, her actions are dictated by a facade she has chosen, to avoid ostracism. A little harsh, perhaps, but those are her expressed sentiments, it is hard to surmise anything else.
10 ireign // May 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I don’t agree with Sotomayor’s outlook but that is why I am a Republican and she is a Democrat. Her views seem pretty standard for a liberal Democrat. Not sure why this is especially newsworthy.
Bulldoglover100, she is a liberal Democrat regardless of who appointed her. She was appointed based on Senator Moynihan’s recommendation and was probably part of a deal to get Democratic support on other legislation.
11 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:31 am
ireign
7:44
Bulldoglover100, she is a liberal Democrat regardless of who appointed her. She was appointed based on Senator Moynihan’s recommendation and was probably part of a deal to get Democratic support on other legislation.
…..Daniel Patrick was very conservative democrat and you’re just speculating on why she was appointed. GHWB was an excellent president and he just as probably appointed her because she was a well qualified hispanic woman and he was trying to created diversity on the bench. An admirable goal.
12 ireign // May 3, 2009 at 7:52 am
ottovbvs-If you think Moynihan was a very conservative Democrat than you are either very young or you have no concept of the political spectrum. Moynihan expressed some concern about affirmative action and about partial-birth abortion but he almost never bucked the Democratic line.
And no, it was known that Moynihan recommended her. She has always been a Democrat. Obviously, Bush’s handlers knew her political affiliation.
Don’t believe me or having trouble using google-”In 1991, Sen. Daniel Patrick Monynihan recommended Sotomayor to the first President Bush, who made good on a promise to appoint a Hispanic judge to a district court in New York.”http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_president_obama_bronx_judge_sonia_sotomayor.html
“Ironically, George H. W. Bush appointed her to Federal District Court in 1991. She being a moderate and the appointment being part of an overall deal between senators to appoint other Bush people, made this possible.”http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=101
13 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 8:13 am
ottovbvs: Back in Moynihan’s time, there were genuinely conservative Democrats, like Fritz Hollings and John Stennis and Robert Byrd (at the time).
To compare Daniel Patrick Moynihan to these men is absurd.
In the Lyndon Johnson Administration, Moynihad helped formulate LBJ’s so called “War on Poverty”.
According to Wikipedia:
“He voted against the death penalty, the flag desecration amendment, the balanced budget amendment, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Communications Decency Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
NAFTA, as you know, was signed by President Clinton, who also supported the death penalty. So Moynihan was to the left of Clinton on at least both these issues.
You must log in to post a comment.