Popular in Professional

Business

The Allegory of the Favela: The Multifaceted Effects of Socioeconomic Mobility

University of Pennsylvania Leandro S. Pongeluppe

Architecture

Connecting Cities and Nature

University of Virginia Timothy Beatley

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Finance

Chinese Exchange Rate Policy: Lessons for Global Investors

University of California San Diego Michael Melvin

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

Firm Performance Pay as Insurance against Promotion Risk

Stockholm School of Economics Alvin Chen

Supreme Bias

View more insights in Books - Professional - Law - Socio-legal Studies

View more figures from University of Massachusetts

View the page of Paul M. Collins

Read the Study

Next in Books

Freedom’s Dominion

Jefferson Cowie | Vanderbilt University

Queer Lasting: Ecologies of Care for a Dying World

Sarah Ensor | University of Wisconsin Madison

Paul M. Collins, Jr discusses the dynamics of race and gender at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 7, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses observations of racial and gender bias in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, particularly highlighting the differences in how male senators question female nominees and nominees of color. The speakers, who are researchers, note that during recent hearings, subtle biases have been observed, such as questioning the competence of female and minority nominees more than their male counterparts.

They ground their analysis in social science research, collecting extensive data from every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since 1939, amounting to over 40,000 statements. They apply ingroup-outgroup theory, which posits that individuals favor those who are similar to them, to interpret the behavior of predominantly white male senators towards diverse nominees.

The researchers found that these biases manifest in the form of different questioning styles, interruptions, and skepticism regarding the qualifications of female and minority nominees. They argue that much of this bias is implicit, but conscious partisanship exacerbates it, especially when the nominee does not share the senator's political or racial background.

To address these biases, the researchers suggest structural reforms, including making senators aware of their biases and implementing staggered 18-year terms for justices to reduce the high stakes associated with confirmations. They believe these changes could foster a more equitable confirmation process and better represent the American populace in the Supreme Court.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.225 --> 00:03.485
We spent a lot of time thinking about racial

00:03.785 --> 00:05.965
and gender bias in American government.

00:06.505 --> 00:08.765
And Christie, Lori and I have also spent a lot

00:08.765 --> 00:11.805
of time thinking about Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

00:12.185 --> 00:15.365
And as we were watching Supreme Court confirmation hearings

00:15.365 --> 00:19.205
over, say, the last 10 years, we started to notice patterns

00:19.225 --> 00:22.925
of behavior that didn't quite sit right with us, right?

00:22.985 --> 00:26.525
In other words, we thought that

00:26.525 --> 00:29.325
what we were observing were subtle forms of bias.

00:29.625 --> 00:33.125
And, and sometimes this comes up in really innocuous ways.

00:33.305 --> 00:34.405
And, and so for example,

00:35.035 --> 00:39.605
Senator John Kennedy asked then nominee Amy Coney Barrett,

00:39.985 --> 00:41.405
who does the laundry in your house?

00:42.305 --> 00:45.325
And this seems like a really lighthearted moment in a

00:45.325 --> 00:46.405
confirmation hearing.

00:46.865 --> 00:50.485
But if you think about it in the context of gender bias,

00:51.105 --> 00:52.485
you, you start thinking, well,

00:52.785 --> 00:55.085
why didn't Neil Gorsuch get that question?

00:55.305 --> 00:57.925
Or why didn't Brett Kavanaugh get that question?

00:58.515 --> 01:00.485
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both appointed

01:00.585 --> 01:04.525
by former President Trump have almost identical backgrounds

01:04.665 --> 01:06.005
as Amy Coney Barrett.

01:06.305 --> 01:09.165
Yet that question was reserved for a woman.

01:09.865 --> 01:11.325
And when we thought about this,

01:11.545 --> 01:15.165
we also started notice some sort of heavier types of bias.

01:15.665 --> 01:18.765
And so, for example, we were picking up on patterns

01:19.075 --> 01:23.045
that white male senators were treating female nominees

01:23.065 --> 01:24.885
and nominees of color differently.

01:25.075 --> 01:27.725
They seem to be questioning their competence more.

01:27.955 --> 01:29.925
They seem to be more skeptical of that.

01:30.425 --> 01:34.325
And so we set out in this book to, to ask the question,

01:34.545 --> 01:36.125
is this actually happening?

01:36.465 --> 01:39.645
And so we employed rigorous social science techniques

01:40.065 --> 01:41.565
to get at that very question.

01:41.935 --> 01:45.325
We're looking at Supreme Court confirmation hearings in

01:45.325 --> 01:47.125
front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

01:47.705 --> 01:48.925
And you know, this is a type

01:48.925 --> 01:50.605
of job interview, basically, right?

01:50.755 --> 01:54.005
It's probably the most high profile job interview you could

01:54.235 --> 01:55.365
conceivably imagine.

01:55.785 --> 01:58.325
But it really is a, it's a type of job interview.

01:58.705 --> 02:02.765
And so during these hearings, nominees testify in front

02:02.765 --> 02:06.085
of the judiciary committee for days on end, right?

02:06.185 --> 02:07.885
And they're basically there to prove

02:08.355 --> 02:13.125
that they deserve a position on the highest court in land.

02:13.865 --> 02:15.485
And so that's the sort of setting

02:15.705 --> 02:17.085
by which we're looking at this.

02:17.385 --> 02:20.685
Um, now we think that these hearings are a particularly

02:21.485 --> 02:24.725
interesting setting for investigating racial and gender bias

02:24.955 --> 02:26.885
because they're so high profile.

02:27.445 --> 02:30.485
Millions of Americans tune in to gavel

02:30.485 --> 02:32.245
to gavel coverage of the hearings.

02:32.525 --> 02:35.645
Millions more follow the hearings on social media,

02:35.905 --> 02:38.445
on the nightly news, on the radio, on the internet.

02:38.785 --> 02:41.485
We talk about them at dinner with our family and friends.

02:42.145 --> 02:45.765
And so it's interesting to think about racial

02:45.905 --> 02:49.645
and gender bias happening in such a high profile setting.

02:50.625 --> 02:53.925
So the way we set out to systematically investigate this,

02:54.505 --> 02:57.365
we collected data on every question asked

02:57.505 --> 02:58.765
and every answer given

02:59.425 --> 03:01.805
At every hearing throughout American history.

03:02.465 --> 03:04.885
So these hearings start in 1939,

03:05.345 --> 03:08.205
and the most recent hearing, was that of Justice

03:08.715 --> 03:11.165
Kaji Brown Jackson in 2022.

03:11.745 --> 03:14.245
So this is an am a huge amount of data.

03:14.305 --> 03:16.525
We have over 40,000 statements.

03:16.785 --> 03:20.925
Um, and then what was the real challenging part

03:20.985 --> 03:24.645
of doing research in this area is conceptualizing

03:24.945 --> 03:28.525
how you might measure these sometimes very subtle forms

03:28.545 --> 03:31.285
of bias whenever you're talking about such

03:31.285 --> 03:32.365
high profile events.

03:32.465 --> 03:34.725
And, and you're thinking that, you know, you,

03:34.785 --> 03:36.925
you can observe these patterns of bias,

03:37.025 --> 03:39.365
but sometimes it's hard to articulate exactly

03:39.435 --> 03:40.485
what you're observing.

03:40.905 --> 03:43.805
And so that brought us into the literature,

03:43.805 --> 03:46.525
which is a really interdisciplinary literature

03:46.975 --> 03:48.485
about implicit bias.

03:48.905 --> 03:51.645
And we started thinking about the circumstances

03:52.295 --> 03:54.365
under which you might notice, for example,

03:54.605 --> 03:58.045
that white male senators are asking different types

03:58.065 --> 04:01.845
of questions of nominees of color or, or of female nominees.

04:02.305 --> 04:04.645
And so we landed on a few key metrics.

04:04.865 --> 04:08.285
So we're looking at things like questions of competence.

04:08.455 --> 04:10.685
We're looking at inter interruptions.

04:10.815 --> 04:13.165
We're looking at the ways

04:13.475 --> 04:17.605
that senators frame nominees of color and female nominees.

04:17.605 --> 04:20.045
In other words, the type of tone that they're using

04:20.045 --> 04:22.165
and the types type of words that they're using.

04:22.385 --> 04:25.085
We plug in theoretically to this very vast,

04:25.235 --> 04:27.765
very interdisciplinary literature on

04:27.765 --> 04:29.125
ingroup outgroup theory.

04:29.625 --> 04:31.845
And this is really intuitive,

04:31.845 --> 04:33.245
which is part of its power.

04:33.785 --> 04:37.765
And so the idea is that people tend to favor members

04:37.865 --> 04:38.885
of their ingroup,

04:39.425 --> 04:42.765
and they sometimes disfavor whether explicitly

04:42.785 --> 04:45.725
or implicitly members of their outgroup.

04:46.105 --> 04:48.765
And so this ingroup outgroup, it can mean a lot

04:48.765 --> 04:49.845
of different things, right?

04:49.865 --> 04:53.645
So you could conceptualize your in-group as people that root

04:53.645 --> 04:55.045
for your favorite sports team

04:55.265 --> 04:57.405
or people you went to college with,

04:57.945 --> 05:01.045
or it could be something like the way we think about it,

05:01.335 --> 05:04.485
which is racial and gender in groups and out groups.

05:05.265 --> 05:09.205
And so we tapped into this vast interdisciplinary

05:09.685 --> 05:13.005
literature, and we started thinking about how it applies

05:13.065 --> 05:15.845
to the context of confirmation hearings, again,

05:15.845 --> 05:17.845
which are basically job interviews.

05:18.425 --> 05:20.805
And what we found is that there's a very,

05:20.805 --> 05:23.125
very large literature that shows that

05:23.745 --> 05:26.885
in group bias is particularly strong in a

05:26.885 --> 05:28.005
evaluative settings.

05:28.025 --> 05:31.765
In other words, when people from an ingroup are evaluating

05:31.765 --> 05:34.965
people from an outgroup, you tend to see that type

05:34.965 --> 05:37.165
of bias really manifest itself.

05:37.585 --> 05:41.205
So we adapted this theory to understand the dynamics

05:41.205 --> 05:44.605
of Supreme Court confirmation to set the table, so to speak.

05:45.145 --> 05:47.845
We have to think about what the Senate Judiciary Committee

05:47.855 --> 05:51.045
looks like, and throughout American history

05:51.225 --> 05:54.765
and to today, it's been absolutely dominated by white.

05:55.595 --> 05:56.695
And we also have to think about

05:56.695 --> 05:58.280
What the US Supreme Court,

05:58.425 --> 06:02.285
and to a lesser extent other federal courts in America look

06:02.285 --> 06:04.925
like they've also been dominated by white men.

06:05.625 --> 06:08.765
So that leads us to, to reach the conclusion,

06:08.775 --> 06:12.405
which is hardly a stretch that, you know, the ingroup

06:12.405 --> 06:15.005
for these white male senators are other white men.

06:15.185 --> 06:17.245
In other words, when they think about

06:17.675 --> 06:20.645
what a United States Supreme Court justice looks like,

06:21.035 --> 06:22.445
they think about white men.

06:23.105 --> 06:25.845
And so we're particularly interested in

06:25.945 --> 06:29.765
how these white male senators treat nominees of color

06:29.905 --> 06:31.005
and female nomin

06:31.465 --> 06:35.285
and ingroup outgroup theory would lead us to believe

06:35.315 --> 06:38.365
that they're likely to exhibit subtle

06:39.165 --> 06:41.725
implicit biases against these nominees.

06:41.945 --> 06:44.085
And so, for example, they'll be skeptical

06:44.185 --> 06:45.205
of their credentials.

06:45.515 --> 06:48.525
They might be more willing to interrupt these nominees.

06:48.795 --> 06:51.325
They might ask them questions in areas

06:51.415 --> 06:53.205
where they think they might, you know,

06:53.205 --> 06:56.445
have a different perspective than the dominant white male.

06:56.625 --> 06:58.485
And we think a lot

06:58.485 --> 07:01.645
of what's going on is probably happening implicitly.

07:01.865 --> 07:05.365
In other words, that senators are doing this perhaps at

07:05.365 --> 07:06.405
an unconscious level.

07:07.105 --> 07:08.405
Uh, I do think that some

07:08.425 --> 07:11.885
of it is probably happening at a conscious level,

07:12.225 --> 07:14.845
and this is where partisanship comes into the picture.

07:15.545 --> 07:19.725
And so we really see this exacerbated when the questioning

07:19.725 --> 07:22.325
senator and the nominee don't share a

07:22.325 --> 07:23.765
common partisan background.

07:23.985 --> 07:27.485
And so, for example, when you have a Republican white male

07:27.485 --> 07:31.005
senator questioning a nominee of color appointed

07:31.145 --> 07:32.725
by a Democratic president,

07:33.025 --> 07:35.205
you've got a couple things going on there, right?

07:35.345 --> 07:39.365
So the nominee is not in the senator's partisan in group,

07:39.745 --> 07:42.845
and the nominee's not in the senator's racial in group.

07:43.065 --> 07:46.565
And so in circumstances like that, we tend to observe

07:46.675 --> 07:50.165
that senators are kind of rough on nominees, right?

07:50.265 --> 07:52.245
And, and, and a lot of that is being driven

07:52.385 --> 07:54.485
by conscious partisanship.

07:54.745 --> 07:58.525
Um, it's where you see the race

07:58.625 --> 08:02.245
and gender dynamics come into the picture where things tend

08:02.245 --> 08:03.485
to be more subtle.

08:03.865 --> 08:08.205
And so there was a time in American history

08:08.255 --> 08:12.365
where senators, some senators were explicit about

08:13.025 --> 08:14.805
not supporting nominees of color

08:14.905 --> 08:16.885
or not supporting female nominees.

08:17.315 --> 08:19.205
That era is largely bygone.

08:19.545 --> 08:22.325
And so what we're generally looking at are these subtle

08:22.325 --> 08:26.725
forms of bias creeping in probably largely unconsciously,

08:27.095 --> 08:29.805
especially with things like interruptions,

08:29.805 --> 08:31.325
which happen all the time.

08:31.425 --> 08:34.485
But we may not be thinking about the consequences

08:34.785 --> 08:36.085
or how that looks.

08:36.625 --> 08:40.685
And the Supreme Court has been an unrepresented institution

08:40.685 --> 08:43.445
in American government, particularly

08:43.715 --> 08:45.445
with regard to race and gender.

08:45.995 --> 08:47.165
It's been changing rapidly.

08:48.025 --> 08:50.885
But you know, we have the most diverse United States Supreme

08:50.885 --> 08:52.125
Court in American history.

08:52.625 --> 08:53.805
But even,

08:54.115 --> 08:57.285
even today's Supreme Court is hardly representative

08:57.585 --> 08:58.925
of the American public.

08:59.545 --> 09:01.605
And what's interesting about this is

09:01.605 --> 09:04.965
that the Supreme Court in America makes these grand

09:05.245 --> 09:08.525
decisions, right, with respect to what schools look like,

09:08.635 --> 09:10.405
with respect to whether or not people have

09:10.555 --> 09:13.165
with reproductive autonomy, with respect

09:13.325 --> 09:15.885
to the safety when you're walking down the street

09:15.905 --> 09:17.525
or your child is going to school.

09:18.425 --> 09:19.605
And more

09:19.605 --> 09:22.725
and more it's become less representative of, of, you know,

09:22.835 --> 09:24.725
sort of core American values.

09:25.305 --> 09:27.525
And so I think it's a good thing

09:27.525 --> 09:29.365
that we're putting a spotlight on an

09:29.365 --> 09:31.125
unrepresented institution.

09:31.445 --> 09:32.565
I think it's a good thing

09:32.565 --> 09:35.445
that we're thinking about the obstacles that women

09:35.505 --> 09:39.285
and people of color who might improve decision making on the

09:39.285 --> 09:40.325
Supreme Court face.

09:40.675 --> 09:42.765
It's tough because as I said, a lot

09:42.765 --> 09:44.125
of this bias is implicit.

09:44.305 --> 09:46.645
So it, so it's unconscious a lot of the time.

09:47.065 --> 09:49.045
And so the first proposal we have is

09:49.045 --> 09:51.765
to just make senators aware of it.

09:51.985 --> 09:54.325
And so it's doing things that we're doing right now, right?

09:54.325 --> 09:55.525
It's talking to the media,

09:55.835 --> 09:59.365
it's sharing our research findings with other academics

09:59.365 --> 10:00.525
with a broader public.

10:00.745 --> 10:03.925
And so it's important to bring attention to this type

10:03.925 --> 10:06.845
of bias in order to, to, start

10:06.985 --> 10:10.605
to at least have a conversation about reducing it.

10:11.385 --> 10:13.405
We also think it would be useful

10:13.785 --> 10:15.925
to call out the bias when it happens.

10:16.265 --> 10:19.245
And so, you know, we're sensitive to

10:19.265 --> 10:22.605
who exactly might be called on to call out the bias.

10:22.905 --> 10:26.205
Um, in other words, we don't wanna put it on female senators

10:26.205 --> 10:27.605
and senators of color,

10:28.385 --> 10:30.965
but there are examples in the past of, of, for example,

10:30.965 --> 10:33.125
Patrick Leahy, from Vermont.

10:33.345 --> 10:36.525
He was a very prominent member of the Judiciary Committee

10:37.165 --> 10:38.765
stopping senators in their tracks

10:38.765 --> 10:40.725
and saying, Hey, I've observed

10:40.725 --> 10:43.405
that every time we have a female nominee in front of us,

10:43.665 --> 10:45.445
you keep on interrupting her.

10:45.585 --> 10:48.365
You know, why is it that we do that, in particular

10:48.435 --> 10:49.845
with female nominees?

10:50.405 --> 10:51.405
I also think the media

10:52.065 --> 10:54.125
and non-governmental organizations,

10:54.235 --> 10:57.485
they could also play this role by bringing attention

10:58.385 --> 11:01.165
to this type of, you know, interruptive behavior

11:01.185 --> 11:03.965
to these questions of competence that seem to be

11:04.525 --> 11:06.605
targeted towards women and people of color.

11:07.955 --> 11:11.295
You know, that being said, we tend to think that

11:11.835 --> 11:14.735
the biggest way to help solve this type

11:14.735 --> 11:18.575
of bias is actually a structural reform at the,

11:18.595 --> 11:20.015
at the Supreme Court level.

11:20.235 --> 11:23.535
Um, so the way, as you note, you know,

11:23.645 --> 11:26.695
that we think about the Supreme Court in America is

11:26.695 --> 11:28.695
that it gets a lot of attention.

11:29.195 --> 11:30.255
It gets, you know, a lot

11:30.255 --> 11:32.495
of Americans are skeptical towards the court,

11:33.195 --> 11:36.135
and these hearings become almost like trial,

11:36.305 --> 11:37.655
trial by ordeal, right?

11:38.155 --> 11:41.295
Almost everything stops in America during these hearings.

11:41.315 --> 11:45.215
We focus our intention because the stakes are so hot,

11:45.215 --> 11:47.095
because we know that

11:47.155 --> 11:49.975
who sits on the Supreme Court will matter

11:50.035 --> 11:52.695
for generations to come. And so if we

11:52.715 --> 11:56.245
Change that, if we took the heat off the process a little

11:56.305 --> 11:59.205
bit, we think that we'd end up with a better process.

11:59.745 --> 12:04.565
And so we join a number of scholars suggesting 18 year terms

12:04.705 --> 12:07.525
for Supreme Court Justices life tenure.

12:07.995 --> 12:10.485
It's really an antiquated idea in America.

12:10.795 --> 12:14.005
It's not serving the purpose that it was originally,

12:14.545 --> 12:15.885
intended to serve.

12:16.345 --> 12:19.085
And so if you had staggered 18 year terms

12:19.185 --> 12:20.845
for Supreme Court Justices,

12:21.105 --> 12:23.605
it would take the heat off the process, make it less

12:23.605 --> 12:27.085
of a salient event, it would occur with more regularity,

12:27.665 --> 12:31.405
and perhaps most beneficially it would better connect the

12:31.725 --> 12:34.125
American people to the highest court in the nation.

Examining Bias in Supreme Court Hearings

00:00:00 - We spent a lot of time thinking about racial and gender bias in American government. And Christie, Lori and I have also spent a lot of time thinking about Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And as we were watching Supreme Court confirmation hearings over, say, the last 10 years, we started to notice patterns of behavior that didn't quite sit right with us, right? In other words, we thought that what we were observing were subtle forms of bias. And, and sometimes this comes up in really innocuous ways.
00:00:35 - Senator John Kennedy asked then nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who does the laundry in your house? And this seems like a really lighthearted moment in a confirmation hearing. But if you think about it in the context of gender bias, you, you start thinking, well, why didn't Neil Gorsuch get that question? Or why didn't Brett Kavanaugh get that question? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both appointed by former President Trump have almost identical backgrounds
00:01:06 - Yet that question was reserved for a woman. And when we thought about this, we also started notice some sort of heavier types of bias. And so, for example, we were picking up on patterns that white male senators were treating female nominees and nominees of color differently. They seem to be questioning their competence more. They seem to be more skeptical of that. And so we set out in this book to, to ask the question, is this actually happening?
00:01:40 - to get at that very question. We're looking at Supreme Court confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And you know, this is a type of job interview, basically, right? It's probably the most high profile job interview you could conceivably imagine. But it really is a, it's a type of job interview. And so during these hearings, nominees testify in front of the judiciary committee for days on end, right? And they're basically there to prove
00:02:13 - And so that's the sort of setting by which we're looking at this. now we think that these hearings are a particularly interesting setting for investigating racial and gender bias because they're so high profile. Millions of Americans tune in to gavel to gavel coverage of the hearings. Millions more follow the hearings on social media, on the nightly news, on the radio, on the internet.
00:02:42 - And so it's interesting to think about racial and gender bias happening in such a high profile setting. So the way we set out to systematically investigate this, we collected data on every question asked and every answer given At every hearing throughout American history. So these hearings start in 1939, and the most recent hearing, was that of Justice Kaji Brown Jackson in 2022.

Investigating Bias in Supreme Court Hearings

00:03:14 - We have over 40,000 statements. and then what was the real challenging part of doing research in this area is conceptualizing how you might measure these sometimes very subtle forms of bias whenever you're talking about such high profile events. And, and you're thinking that, you know, you, you can observe these patterns of bias, but sometimes it's hard to articulate exactly what you're observing. And so that brought us into the literature,
00:03:46 - about implicit bias. And we started thinking about the circumstances under which you might notice, for example, that white male senators are asking different types of questions of nominees of color or, or of female nominees. And so we landed on a few key metrics. So we're looking at things like questions of competence. We're looking at inter interruptions. We're looking at the ways that senators frame nominees of color and female nominees.
00:04:20 - and the types type of words that they're using. We plug in theoretically to this very vast, very interdisciplinary literature on ingroup outgroup theory. And this is really intuitive, which is part of its power. And so the idea is that people tend to favor members of their ingroup, and they sometimes disfavor whether explicitly or implicitly members of their outgroup. And so this ingroup outgroup, it can mean a lot
00:04:49 - So you could conceptualize your in-group as people that root for your favorite sports team or people you went to college with, or it could be something like the way we think about it, which is racial and gender in groups and out groups. And so we tapped into this vast interdisciplinary literature, and we started thinking about how it applies to the context of confirmation hearings, again, which are basically job interviews. And what we found is that there's a very,
00:05:23 - in group bias is particularly strong in a evaluative settings. In other words, when people from an ingroup are evaluating people from an outgroup, you tend to see that type of bias really manifest itself. So we adapted this theory to understand the dynamics of Supreme Court confirmation to set the table, so to speak. We have to think about what the Senate Judiciary Committee looks like, and throughout American history
00:05:55 - And we also have to think about What the US Supreme Court, and to a lesser extent other federal courts in America look like they've also been dominated by white men. So that leads us to, to reach the conclusion, which is hardly a stretch that, you know, the ingroup for these white male senators are other white men. In other words, when they think about what a United States Supreme Court justice looks like, they think about white men.

Implicit Bias in Senate Confirmation Hearings

00:06:25 - how these white male senators treat nominees of color and female nomin and ingroup outgroup theory would lead us to believe that they're likely to exhibit subtle implicit biases against these nominees. And so, for example, they'll be skeptical of their credentials. They might be more willing to interrupt these nominees. They might ask them questions in areas where they think they might, you know,
00:06:56 - And we think a lot of what's going on is probably happening implicitly. In other words, that senators are doing this perhaps at an unconscious level. I do think that some of it is probably happening at a conscious level, and this is where partisanship comes into the picture. And so we really see this exacerbated when the questioning senator and the nominee don't share a common partisan background.
00:07:27 - senator questioning a nominee of color appointed by a Democratic president, you've got a couple things going on there, right? So the nominee is not in the senator's partisan in group, and the nominee's not in the senator's racial in group. And so in circumstances like that, we tend to observe that senators are kind of rough on nominees, right? And, and, and a lot of that is being driven by conscious partisanship.
00:07:58 - and gender dynamics come into the picture where things tend to be more subtle. And so there was a time in American history where senators, some senators were explicit about not supporting nominees of color or not supporting female nominees. That era is largely bygone. And so what we're generally looking at are these subtle forms of bias creeping in probably largely unconsciously,
00:08:29 - which happen all the time. But we may not be thinking about the consequences or how that looks. And the Supreme Court has been an unrepresented institution in American government, particularly with regard to race and gender. It's been changing rapidly. But you know, we have the most diverse United States Supreme Court in American history. But even, even today's Supreme Court is hardly representative
00:08:59 - And what's interesting about this is that the Supreme Court in America makes these grand decisions, right, with respect to what schools look like, with respect to whether or not people have with reproductive autonomy, with respect to the safety when you're walking down the street or your child is going to school. And more and more it's become less representative of, of, you know, sort of core American values. And so I think it's a good thing that we're putting a spotlight on an

Addressing Bias in Supreme Court Nominations

00:09:31 - I think it's a good thing that we're thinking about the obstacles that women and people of color who might improve decision making on the Supreme Court face. It's tough because as I said, a lot of this bias is implicit. So it, so it's unconscious a lot of the time. And so the first proposal we have is to just make senators aware of it. And so it's doing things that we're doing right now, right? It's talking to the media, it's sharing our research findings with other academics
00:10:00 - And so it's important to bring attention to this type of bias in order to, to, start to at least have a conversation about reducing it. We also think it would be useful to call out the bias when it happens. And so, you know, we're sensitive to who exactly might be called on to call out the bias. in other words, we don't wanna put it on female senators and senators of color, but there are examples in the past of, of, for example,
00:10:33 - He was a very prominent member of the Judiciary Committee stopping senators in their tracks and saying, Hey, I've observed that every time we have a female nominee in front of us, you keep on interrupting her. You know, why is it that we do that, in particular with female nominees? I also think the media and non-governmental organizations, they could also play this role by bringing attention to this type of, you know, interruptive behavior
00:11:04 - targeted towards women and people of color. You know, that being said, we tend to think that the biggest way to help solve this type of bias is actually a structural reform at the, at the Supreme Court level. so the way, as you note, you know, that we think about the Supreme Court in America is that it gets a lot of attention. It gets, you know, a lot of Americans are skeptical towards the court,
00:11:36 - trial by ordeal, right? Almost everything stops in America during these hearings. We focus our intention because the stakes are so hot, because we know that who sits on the Supreme Court will matter for generations to come. And so if we Change that, if we took the heat off the process a little bit, we think that we'd end up with a better process. And so we join a number of scholars suggesting 18 year terms
00:12:31 - It's really an antiquated idea in America. It's not serving the purpose that it was originally, intended to serve. And so if you had staggered 18 year terms for Supreme Court Justices, it would take the heat off the process, make it less of a salient event, it would occur with more regularity, and perhaps most beneficially it would better connect the American people to the highest court in the nation.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis