Program Examines Diversity on the Bench

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

--Then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2001.

Judge Delissa Ridgway, Chair of the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges of the ABA Judicial Division, opened the 2010 Midyear Meeting program on diversity on the bench by quoting then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s much-repeated observation about the connection between diversity and judicial decision-making.  A record 60 ABA entities and affiliated organizations, including the American Judicature Society, co-sponsored the program, which drew an engaged audience of more than 170. 

To view all, or part, of the 90 minute program "Diversity on the Bench: Is this 'Wise Latina' a Myth?"  you can click on the photo at right, or visit the American Bar Association aba NOW website.

Professor Pat K. Chew of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law discussed her article, “Myth of the Color-Blind Judge: An Empirical Analysis of Racial Harassment Cases,” which found a strong link between judges’ race/ethnicity and case outcomes.  While plaintiffs were successful in 22% of all cases examined by Professor Chew, those cases presided over by African-American judges were decided in favor of plaintiffs 46% of the time.  White judges found for plaintiffs in 21% of cases and Hispanic judges in 19% of cases.  Professor Chew noted that a judge’s race/ethnicity was statistically significant even when the political party of the appointing president was taken into account.  She observed that the personal experiences and socialization of judges can affect judicial decision-making, and that increased diversity on the federal bench has brought a wider range of perspectives to bear on all case types. 

Jennifer Peresie, an attorney and author of “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts,” presented her research findings based on analysis of 556 sexual harassment and discrimination cases heard in U.S Courts of Appeal between 1999 and 2001.  Peresie found that male judges were twice as likely to find for female plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases, and three times as likely in sexual discrimination cases, when a female judge was on the appellate panel.  She discussed several possible explanations for these outcomes, including effects of female judges on appellate panel deliberations, male judges’ deference to female judges’ views in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, and male judges’ moderation of preferences in the presence of female judges.   

Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania observed that female perspectives on appellate panels can affect deliberations, but did not believe that male judges moderate their views in the presence of female judges. 

Judge Philip R. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas noted that “the law is not static.”  In his view, the job of a judge is to apply the law to real-life experiences, so it is not surprising or inappropriate that a judge’s life experience will have some effect on how they view legal arguments.  Judge Martinez observed that “my objectivity could be very different from another judge’s objectivity.” 

Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri discussed the value of judicial diversity in terms of “bringing multiple points of view and insights” to bear on all cases. 

Panelists discussed whether the research findings are in tension with the values of uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions.  All agreed that individual litigants should not have to worry about how or if the race, ethnicity of gender of a judge will affect their cases.  Professor Chew posited that as long as judges are considering all relevant facts and law, “the rule of law is intact,” even if different judicial perspectives based on a variety of background characteristics and personal and professional experiences may influence the ultimate interpretation and application of the law.