Search News


Browse Archives

News

No Stranger to Higher Ed

May 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, has kept a hand in higher education throughout her judicial career, and has also ruled in several cases that affected academe.

Sotomayor, who has served since 1998 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, began her college career at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude in 1976. President Obama pledged to nominate a person of “empathy” to the bench, and Sotomayor’s own descriptions of her Princeton days describe her struggles fitting in at the Ivy League institution.

“Princeton was an alien land for me,” she told Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education in 2002. “I felt isolated from all I had ever known, and very unsure of how I would survive.”

Sotomayor went on to tell the magazine that she relied on clubs and programs for minority students as “an anchor” to ground herself in a “new and different world.” She went on to Yale Law School, from which she graduated in 1979.

Sotomayor has held faculty positions at the law schools of Columbia University and New York University, and issues tied to academe have also been argued in her courtroom. In one such case, Sotomayor sided with a dyslexic woman seeking extra time to complete the New York bar exam. The Second Circuit court was asked to reconsider the case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people who treat disabilities with medication or other measures are not protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Even in the presence of that ruling, however, Sotomayor found the plaintiff was still protected under the ADA.

The plaintiff, Marilyn Bartlett, had developed techniques to improve her reading ability, including tracing her finger below text to keep her place, according to court documents. Even so, the Second Circuit found she was entitled to extra time.

“Just as a person in a wheelchair can use an above-ground entrance to gain access to a building if a ramp is available, an individual with a learning disability can draw meaning from high level text if she is allowed the time she requires to slowly decipher each word,” the ruling states. “To such an individual, time is her ramp. The record demonstrates that Bartlett’s achievements thus far have come as a result of extraordinary efforts not required by individuals without disabilities. She should not be excluded from the protections of the Act because of accomplishments made despite her disability.”

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which took effect in January, provided that most mitigating measures don’t have a bearing on whether a person qualifies for protections, rendering moot some of the issues the Bartlett case explored. Nonetheless, the case provides some glimpse into how Sotomayor might rule in disability cases, which often have an impact on higher education, according to Barbara A. Lee, co-author of The Law of Higher Education.

“Clearly if she was in the group of people who felt Ms. Bartlett deserved to be accommodated, [that] suggests she would have a sympathetic approach for individuals with disabilities,” said Lee, a professor of human resource management at Rutgers University. “And that would be helpful for students and for employees.”

Sotomayor has also written opinions on copyright law, an area of increasing relevance to academe in the digital age. In 1997, she ruled that publishers could reproduce freelancers’ works electronically without permission from the writers. The ruling in New York Times v. Tasini, however, was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court announced in March that it may again revisit the Tasini case, which has had a significant impact on the inventories of electronic databases that house academic journal articles. Xiaotian Chen, an electronic services librarian and associate professor at Bradley University, said academe would have been better served if the Supreme Court had simply let Sotomayor’s ruling stand. Rather than paying freelancers, database operators deleted their works in many cases -- a resolution that served no one, Chen said.

“What the Supreme Court decided makes everybody a loser,” said Chen, who has written about the ruling’s impact. “The authors did not get what they wanted; instead the database owners deleted articles by those authors.… The biggest losers are us, the users, because it was deleted.”

While she has not ruled on the hotly contested issue of affirmative action in the context of higher education, Sotomayor has weighed in on discrimination and high stakes testing. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Second Circuit court ruled that city officials in New Haven were justified in abandoning a test that had been used for promotions of firefighters. African Americans had failed the test disproportionately, prompting the city to throw it out.

Opponents of Sotomayor's nomination, and the use of race based preferences, have been paticularly critical of the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court announced in April that it would take up the case, which was brought by 17 white firefighters who alleged discrimination.

Personal Story Draws Praise

Apart from her legal qualifications, supporters of Sotomayor have touted her personal story. Sotomayor, 54, was born to Puerto Rican parents and grew up in a public housing project in the Bronx. If confirmed, she would be the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic justice.

President Obama said early on that he wanted to nominate a person who would bring "empathy" to the position, providing an early clue that he'd seek a person who had firsthand experience with struggles shared by the immigrant community or minorities. Michael A. Olivas, director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at the University of Houston, said Sotomayor background gives her “empathy in spades." As for how that background and her judicial philosophy might serve colleges and universities, Olivas said he’s comfortable with what he’s learned thus far about the nominee.

“I certainly think she has impeccable credentials,” said Olivas, a law professor. “And as a higher education advocate and higher education employee, I’d be glad to see her [rule] in any case.”

Some of the earliest criticisms of Sotomayor have been the result of comments she made on a college campus. In 2005, speaking at Duke University Law School, Sotomayor said “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Clearly aware of the controversy inherent in the statement -- conservative critics often criticize “activist” judges for trying to make law -- Sotomayor added “I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know.”

Sotomayor’s experience in higher education, however, isn’t limited to guest appearances on campuses or her time as a student. She is a trustee at Princeton, and she has also held two academic positions: she served as an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law from 1998 to 2007, and she has been a lecturer at Columbia Law School since 1999.

While at New York University, Sotomayor taught several courses, including trial and appellate advocacy. That course walked students through “the critical stages of a case from the inception through the appeal,” according to a course description. At Columbia, Sotomayor oversaw federal appellate court externships, which provided students with an opportunity to assist in legal research, university officials said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on No Stranger to Higher Ed

  • political stunting
  • Posted by James L. Secor , Visiting professor at Hefei Univeristy of Technology on May 27, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • This is just another in the long, long run of similar politically correct moves Obama has made his entire career. I' ve published on his voting "habits" as have others. He comes out looking like the hero and the champion of the people, the common man because he knows she will not be confirmed, which is why he nominated her. I would be very surprised, for I'm sure the Senate grilling of Sotomayer will be more of a Sotomayer grilling of the Senate. . .and the egomanic power mongers won't take to that well. I'll gladly eat crow if she manages appointment: here in China, everything imaginable is food!

  • Sotomayor and the Bartlett Case
  • Posted by L. Scott Lissner , ADA Coordinator at The Ohio State Univeristy on May 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I read this mornings article, "No Stranger to Higher Ed," May 27, 2009 with interest. While essentially accurate the brief analysis of the Bartlett case is too likely to leave the unfamilliar reader with the wrong impressions. One issue in the case was the role of mitigatng measures Dr. Bartlett used a wide range of compensatory strtategies to decode print; I would be remiss if I did not point out that charecterizing them as tracing the words with her finger trivializes the reality of her efforts and disability. That said I want to focus on the core of the case.

    At the heart of the case was the Americans With Disability Act's Definition of disability; what level of impairment constitutes a substantial limitation under the ADA. Defining disability was also central to the ADA Amendments Act that took effect in Jannuary. Several cases that will interpret the new statutory definition of disabilty are working their way through the courts including Jenkins v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners (No. 3:07-CV-698-H, 2008 WL 410237, W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2008) a case involving a dyslexic medical student whoose accommodation request to the National Board of Medical Examiners mirriors Dr. Bartlett's. It is likely that in the next few years the Supreme Court will be asked to expound on the definition as well. If appointed, Sotomayor is uniquely qualafied for this task. While the Bartlett decision is not referenced in the statutory language of the ADA Amendments it does appear in its legislative history

    “As we stated in the committee report on H.R. 3195, the committee supports the finding in Bartlett. Our report explains that ``an individual with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity should not be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability." Representative George Miller on the floor of the House; Congressional Record 9/17/2008, Page: H8294

    Another important clarification was highlighted in the Colloquy between Representatives Miller and Stark.

    Stark “Would the Chairman agree that the measure before us rejects the assumption that an individual who has performed well academically cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning reading, writing, thinking, or speaking?”

    Miller“Yes, I would. As chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, I agree that both H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 reject the holding that academic success is inconsistent with the finding that an individual is substantially limited in such major life activities. As such, we reject the findings in Price v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Gonzalez v. National Board of Medical Examiners, and Wong v. Regents of University of California.”(Colloquy between Representatives George Miller and Fortney Stark on the floor of the House, Congressional Record 9/17/2008, Page: H8286)

    The Senate Managers Report for the Amendments also emphasizes that the analysis of substantial limitation is anchored to the conditions, manor and duration under which an individual can undertake an activity not their ultimate performance outcome. This is the analysis Sotomayor used in Bartlett which stands in contrast to the reasoning used in the cases Representative Miller lists as rejected by the amendments (Price, Gonzalez and Wong)

    The Bartlett case included a lot of expert testimony on psychometric test results trying to determine if Dr. Bartlett was substantially limited in reading. In a presentation made to AHEAD in Atlanta Dr. Bartlett and her Attorney, Jo Anne Simon shared that a critical point in the District Court trial was when Dr. Bartlett read a passage from a Bar Exam preparation guide aloud from the stand. Witnessing Dr. Bartlett’s effort and approach to reading seems to have demonstrated to Judge Sotomayor’s satisfaction that that, however the test scores might be interpreted by the defendants' experts, there was a disability present. In her opinion Judge Sotomayor wrote:

    "For those of us for whom words sing, sentences paint pictures, and paragraphs create panoramic views of the world, the inability to identify and process words with ease would be crippling. Plaintiff, an obviously intelligent, highly articulate individual reads slowly, haltingly, and laboriously. She simply does not read in the manner of an average person. I reject the basic premise of defendants' experts that a learning disability in reading can be identified solely by a person's inability to decode, i.e., identify words, as measured by standardized tests, and I accept instead the basic premise of plaintiff's experts that a learning disability in reading has to be identified in the context of an individual's total processing difficulties." (Emphasis added)

    Judge Sotomayor, who is not a trained diagnostician, believed that Dr. Bartlett's disability was effectively demonstrated by direct observation rather than relying solely on numerical scores from tests that were designed to measure more limited dimensions of complex skills. In my opinion, the lesson about professional observation and judgment in evaluating the need for accommodations stands alongside the clarification that a substantial limitation is not an inability to engage in an activity successfully but limitations in the manner, condition and duration under which an individual can engage in the activity as one of the most important aspects of the Bartlett case. If Appointed, Bartlett has uniquely prepared Judge Sotomayor to understand Congressional intent when the definiton of disability comes before her.

     

     

     

     

  • L. Scott Lissner
  • Posted by DFS on May 27, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Where is your attribution? Please place in proper context. Who said what, and when, and in what context?

    Is somewhere there some quote from the Judge? Or, should we just rely on you?

  • A Judge with Empathy
  • Posted by George Patsourakos , Retired Administrator at Harvard University on May 27, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I believe that Sonia Sotomayor would be an excellent justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that she is of Hispanic background -- and there has never been a Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court -- would make America's highest court the most diverse it has ever been, if she is confirmed. Moreover, as a judge, she sided with a dyslexic woman seeking extra time to complete the New York bar exam. This ruling indicates that Sotomayor has much empathy -- a trait that President Obama pledged his nominee to the Supreme Court must possess.

  • Sotomayor Should be Closely Scrutinized
  • Posted by Shawna on May 27, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Based on her recent decisions, especially in the case of the New Haven foremen, it pains me to say that Judge Sotomayor seems to embrace the utterly illiberal and reactionary position that individual citizens should be treated differently based on their skin color, ethnicity or gender.

    Although it seems so alien to America in 2009, there is ample evidence from her public comments that Judge Sotomayor honestly believes that some people (for instance, Hispanic women) know things that other people (like white men) cannot know. This notion of a group's special knowledge is an odious and divisive characteristic of hers which is deeply worrisome and should be minutely scrutinized in congressional hearings. 

  • Empathy is very dangerous
  • Posted on May 27, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • "Empathy" is perhaps the most dangerous sentiment for anyone with power to justify their decisions with. There are various reasons for this, not the least because empathy is an emotion, not a rational or logical argument. This is not to say that "logic" is purely unemotional, or the most pure expression of knowledge; but, making decisions based upon emotion (i.e. empathy) is dangerous because it means we are making decisions with our hearts and not our minds. I am doing a PhD, and I work hard, long nights -- but I do not want empathy for my experiences, because experiences themselves are not an end result or a product, I want to be judged on my abilities against other people's work, regardless of experience. 

    What does our logic text-book say about appeal to emotion?

  • "Empathy is very dangerous"
  • Posted by FS , Assistant Professor, ACJ Graduate Division at Villanova University on May 28, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • The writer's understanding of empathy is quite impoverished. In a vast literature(eg:Mead,Husserl et al it is well demonstrated that empathy is in very small components and in very small measures actually 'emotion'or "emotional" And when understanding logic as,inter alia,a very highly regimented form of language, the writer's contrast of logical processes with empathy is puzzling at best. FS