The yellow flyers posted around the bulletin boards of the VC campus made the Sonia Sotomayor discussion seem like a unique event. After all how often does the opportunity for intellectual discourse at Baruch arise, especially concerning a topic that does not pertain to business? Personally, there’s no better way to spend a Tuesday break than to gather with other Baruch students to listen to a bunch of academics speak passionately about issues which genuinely spark their interest. My appeal towards the discussion generated primarily from the fact that one of my own professors, Julie Desjardins, would be one of the guest speakers. I’ve attended Baruch for less than a semester and already I’ve had the privileged to be under the tutelage of such a poised, articulate woman with a sharp intellect capable of penetrating through the complexities of any topic at hand. Come to think of it, most of my professors at Baruch possess these qualities. Anyway back to the discussion.
The Sotomayor event drew a medium-sized crowd, and the tone throughout was semi-formal. Prior to the start of the discussion a Baruch student played a classical tune which majestically filled the room, while the rest of the members of the crowd casually conversed with friends or disinterestedly toyed around with their cell phones. It was more than apparent that many of my peers were rather disengaged and apathetic and merely dragged themselves to the discussion in order to reap the extrinsic benefits of extra credit and not for the purpose of intellectual stimulation. As I was entering the designated room for the discussion I overheard one student mutter to her friend, “this looks too boring, I’m leaving”, and additionally many other students were shockingly uninformed about the woman in the spotlight referring to her as “Sonia whatever-her-name-is”. However, I don’t judge Baruch students as purposefully neglectful concerning current events, when it is almost inevitable for most of America’s youth to feel disconnected from anything which lies in the political domain.
The discussion began on a modest note with Professor Desjardins confessing to the audience that “we are not experts”, and that the following speeches were a scattered interpretation of the minimal information they had extracted concerning Sonia Sotomayor. Desjardins started off, delving into a sweeping argumentative case on the notion of female gender roles and Sotomayor’s evolving public image ever since she has been placed in a traditionally chauvinistic male environment. Using accessible real world examples, Desjardins describes the process which the media and society tear down a woman of accomplishment once she reaches the cusp of political achievement in order to satisfy their concrete definitions of a “good woman”. Desjardins proves that even in this day and age the terms masculine and feminine still hold significance in people’s minds and generate unwavering stereotypes of female and male behavior. When will this stereotypes be put to rest? It seems that even Professor Desjardins is skeptical about this occurring anytime soon.
The next speaker, Professor Hernandez, spoke from a staunchly liberal standpoint, which would have any conservative in the room flaming. Hernandez, with a tone of passion and personal commitment, dissected the ever present issues of racism and inequality in American society and the overrated assumption our nation has achieved racial harmony. Hernandez illuminated the intricacies of American social stratification, specifically highlighting the exploitation of minorities and the lower classes, and making bold statements concerning their near impossible attempts to climb the social ladder. She references the criminal justice system, unemployment levels, and her own Bronx upbringing to defend the presence of significant economic and political inequalities in our nation. Towards the end of her speech, Hernandez quotes Martin Luther King as a way of indirectly mirroring her own sentiments on the current state of affairs, “an institution that produces beggars needs to be reformed”.
The final speaker, Clarence Taylor, proved to be a highly intelligent man but whose speech was distracted by the low, monotonous tone he spoke with. In order and precision, Taylor briefly overviewed the Sotomayor’s upcoming cases–Sullivan vs. Florida and Graham vs. Florida–and leaves it to the future to decide how Sotomayor will wield her judicial powers when dealing with these juvenile offenders. Taylor also points out the irony that even though Sotomayor’s career as a Supreme Court Justice has barely begun, Americans still possess unwavering expectations concerning who she will support in her future court decisions. This distinction between reality and expectation is important to consider due to the fact that time and time again Supreme Court justices have strayed from their assumed political stances while making decisions in court. Overall the discussion leaves the average audience member with the impression that Sotomayor’s biggest obstacle in the Supreme Court will be trying to overcome the prospect of being marginalized due to her identity as a Hispanic and a female.