Confirmations and Criticism

My father was a good man. He was somewhat of an introvert from humble means. He woke up everyday, went to work, did his job and provided for his family.

One thing I remember him speaking about was constructive criticism. That subject is a difficult concept for a child to comprehend unless explained in a very controlled environment with lessons spanning a long period of time. Even as an adult being told you’re wrong can be challenging to withstand. We know when we are right or wrong, but we want to arrive at that conclusion in our own mind. Most people are programmed from a young age to move in the right direction and we want to feel like we are making the correct choices. Making mistakes dilutes that sense of confidence and strikes our ego. Making those moments reside outside the confines of the mind results in stress which can be deemed unnecessary.

My parents criticized me relentlessly. At the time I did not like it but with age, I understand how that experience has tempered my disposition. Architecture and development are endeavors under constant scrutiny. How things look, how things function, what things cost, who is going to pay for it, and why is it needed, are just a few basic questions vaulted at an idea. When questions are resolved, new ones arise. When a project is completed and the ribbon is cut, a new set of questions and criticisms come forth.

In my architecture and development journey I have had an opportunity to rub shoulders with capable task masters, each different, but also similar.

One quality I have learned from those observations is the ability to take in information, process data, reserve immediate judgement, and assemble an appropriate response or remain silent. Developers and architects, are extremely savvy in that way. I believe they are able to take in positive and negative information and treat it in the same fashion by observing though the macro lens. This means seeing the big picture. Observing situations from a high elevation does not allow for the ultra rapid responses that society sometimes demands. Seeing the big picture can take a moment to formulate the geometry.

Last week there was a U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing. The candidate, who will be the first black woman to preside on the U.S. Supreme Court, was bombarded by questions from the Senate. It played out as one would expect between political party lines. There was harsh criticism that some questions were demeaning and unnecessary. There was criticism that the politicians used the platform to make various statements. That is not a criticism, it is simply what politicians are there to do.

I did not get into the detailed weeds of the hearings but I heard there was a question asking why does the laundry in the household. When viewed from ground level, that line of questioning can seem obtuse, however, I challenge you to take a few steps back and see the larger picture. I think we sometimes forget why we are where we are and why we do things a certain way in this country.

I saw this great graphic showing a checklist of tasks that the candidate and current Supreme Court judges had accomplished. Ms. Jackson has the most complete record of them all. If there was ever a qualified candidate, she is the gold standard. These qualifications do not guarantee she will make a good judge, but highlights sure do the talking.

The question we need to ask is: how do we question and challenge a candidate that on paper is almost perfect. I must assume that Ms. Jackson understands the law in tremendous detail and from various angles. I must assume that she is totally competent and can apply her vast knowledge to solve complex problems which affect the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens. How do you challenge that?

I commend the brash questioning. When presented with a subject that is perfect, it can be the simple things that rattle the cage. Like the arrow strike that took down the great warrior Achilles, an angle that is simple and dumb presented to a entity so spotless can cause turmoil and frustration. It is a test of patience similar to training a small child. I believe the nonsensical questioning served a purpose. A similar situation would be the highly accomplished university professors that are seated so high that they are no longer rooted in the fabric of normal society. They have no understanding for real life and disguise their social anxiety and fear through a lack of tolerance and patience. Architecture school is loaded with these old and obsolete Prima donnas. They are extremely knowledgeable and experienced but easily flustered when they are “forced” to roam in conversations at the street level where, ironically, architecture actually emanates into existence.

Will the candidate be shaken by testimony that is presented by and odd angle or entangled with raw emotions? A confirmation hearing is a very difficult forum to issue a challenge to gauge those responses. If I was the candidate I would see that line of questioning as a compliment to a spectacular record.

I spoke to my wife about my concept and she said that a man would never be asked questions like that. I replied that she was right because there would be no need to question a man in such a twisted way. Men are easy to challenge as we have seen with the men’s confirmation hearings. Men can typically be challenged through some type of vice or pleasure like substance abuse, power, or sexual misconduct. A woman with those poor habits would never rise to that level as the scrutiny at the lower levels would be too great and present an insurmountable barrier to entry.

It is true that women have a difficult path where they are demanded to achieve perfection. I believe it is the same level of scrutiny but a different challenge specific to gender. Women must be perfect to enter the top and must withstand demeaning treatment, and men “conquer” their way to the top and must withstand the condemnation of poor judgement. I’m sure it is not always equal, but to me, there is some equity there. It’s as if women must make every right decision to make it to the top, then talk their way into proving that they are worthy. In contrast, men, somewhat naturally predisposed to turmoil, must talk their way out of their misgivings and prove that they are still worthy regardless.

I don’t think anyone is truest worried about the questioning of Ms. Jackson. She is qualified and looks the part in every way. I believe she will become the mother of the court and become a precious resource that the other justices will lean upon. Hopefully, ego does not get in the way of those of lesser experience and understand that everyone has a role and together they make the system run better.

This hearing showed elements that American society needs to improve upon. We are too quick to judge and must understand the situation and the reason why things exist. A confirmation hearing is not a conversation to ask simple questions. A confirmation hearing is a direct challenge to the acumen of a professional who will eventually wield tremendous power and responsibility.

A justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is an interpreter of the law and must do so without personal bias or emotion; this is what the law states and why. A confirmation hearing is a end of the line forum where powerful political figures attempt to shake things up. If I was a republican, I would ask the tough questions, even if appearing absurd. The democrats should do the same. They should not take the opportunity to provide highlights or cursory illustrations of an individuals interpretations. They too should issue an even stronger challenge to their own selected candidate. It is the Senates responsibility on both sides to take the final shots. That is the only way to seriously get a candidate. Our society has forgotten that we exist because we are able to have multiple ways of thinking and agree to continue moving forward when our “guy” is not at the seat as leader. What is offensive is when your “guy” is at the helm and you just bring up your own people unchallenged. That too creates division - reinforces division and maintains it.

What happened to the idea of “we challenge our own.” It’s like the NFL draft. If you are a team and you really love a certain player that you want to draft, you bring him in and challenge that player in every way. You challenge them mentally and physically and emotionally. I digress a bit because I did not watch the full hearing so I am making an assumption that the Judicial candidate was not challenged from both sides. What I did read was disconcerting. A lot of blame being passed around for tough, possibly absurd, questioning. Bravo to the challenge. If we want to sustain our nation we must temper ourselves and it starts at the top. Societies are fragile beings. With so many voices, who sets the tempo?