Sotomayor and Tiana

Monica Youn (former classmate!) makes an excellent point about Sotomayor's "wise Latina" quote: it came about as a direct result of being asked to work the second shift of diversity.  She writes:

With each new law job I've started, at some point the e-mail arrives: "Invitation to Join the Diversity Committee." It's a workday reminder that not only am I a woman, but I'm a member of an ethnic minority and, as such, a rare commodity in the legal profession. If I don't reply, I unfailingly receive a follow-up call, inquiring why I haven't responded—underscoring the subtle point that as one of the few examples of an "ethnic" attorney, my refusal to join the committee would be noticed. I willingly accept the invitation, spend the occasional lunch hour discussing recruitment, talk on career panels, engage in conversations about race that don't happen elsewhere in the workplace. The e-mail from the diversity committee is the invitation that can't be refused.
I was reminded of this when reading Judge Sonia Sotomayor's much-discussed keynote from the 2001 Honorable Mario G. Olmos Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture at Berkeley's law school, aka the "wise Latina" speech. The symposium was titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and Sotomayor's invite came from a Latina law school classmate and from Judge Olmos' widow, friends, and family. It was an invitation that could not be lightly refused. But in this political climate, an invitation to speak for half an hour about race in America—like an invitation to talk for 30 minutes about abortion or gay marriage or any other polarizing issue—is an invitation to provide fodder for opposition research. ...

Imagine Chief Justice John Roberts being invited by members of his own cultural network to deliver remarks for the Honorable William H. Rehnquist Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture on what special qualities white men bring to the bench: "What makes your approach, as a white male, different from that of your black judicial colleagues?" "Does being a white man give you special insight into the perspective of white male defendants in discrimination cases?" "Has the presence of white men on the bench made any difference in American law?" Odds are he wouldn't last two minutes before treading on someone's sensibilities. But this political high-wire act is expected from minority figures as a matter of course....

I've also been thinking about this NYT story on the first black Disney princess.  The story seems to take the basic position that she's black, she's not a terrible stereotype, so why are you critics being so picky?  The question of whether sexism or other intersectionalities might come into it is not raised. (And seriously, NYT, am I supposed to feel sorry for Disney for getting criticized "no matter how carefully it strives to put together its television shows, theme-park attractions and movies"?  "Armchair critics" are taking aim at Disney?  As opposed to all those, I don't know, action hero critics like you, NYT reporter?)  I wish there'd been some acknowledgement in the story that the reason the scrutiny is so high is that Tiana is likely to be the only black Disney princess for at least the length of several childhoods, if not much longer--she's the focus of intense attention because before her are awful stereotypes and after her Disney will almost certainly feel discharged from the obligation to create a black heroine.  Under such circumstances, critics who accept the NYT's framing, as if we could just look at the single movie to evaluate Tiana's place in culture, are in a no-win situation.