University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

2000

The Paradox of Silence: Some Questions About Silence as The Paradox of Silence: Some Questions About Silence as

Resistance Resistance

Dorothy E. Roberts University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship

Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, Gender, Race,

Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, Law and

Gender Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History Commons,

Race and Ethnicity Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons

Repository Citation Repository Citation Roberts, Dorothy E., "The Paradox of Silence: Some Questions About Silence as Resistance" (2000). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1318. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1318

This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact PennlawIR@law.upenn.edu.

SU J\l ,\111! 2(11)1)1

SI'Rll\:C :2000]

~I '11c flilrod,>x ,,( Silcucc

'/he Porar!ox o{Si!eno:

T H E PARADOX OJ< SILENCE: SOME Q UESTIONS ABOUT SILENCE AS RESISTANCE

Dorutlw E. Roberts'

lYIRO!H i C:TlON

~-)43

Professor I\brgareL :Yiontoya's article Silence and Silencinp;: Their Cmtrzf!dal w1rl c·entriji1gal Forces in regal Conwwnication, Ped(/gogy rmrl

Di1CUIII\t is a bscinating e:-;ploration of the many possible interpre­tations of silence in lcg;d arenas and discourse.' Tapping a rich literature on silence, Professor Montova demonstrates that silence has many meanings. It signifies different things in different cul­tures , ;mel it is used in a multitude of ways by women of color. l'vlorcoYer, the meaning of silence changes depending on the con­text. Silence is not just the absence of voice; silence is "an interactive process" that responds to the conduct of other human beings.' Because dominant groups are often ignorant about si­lence's multiple meanings, they tend to misinterpret the silences of subordinated people.' A central theme of Professor Montoya's article is that both dominant and subordinated groups use lan­guage in their interests: traditional legal discourse "produce a centripetal force that constantly centralizes power and privilege within the hands of those dedicated to maintaining the status quo, " while outsiders use language to "produce centrifugal forces that decentralize and destabilize that power and privilege."' Profes­sor Montoya asserts that one of the subordinating uses of language by dominant groups is to silence outsiders.-, She also argues that one of outsiders ' tools of resistance is silence. Silence, Professor lVlontm<l suggests, can he deployed as an anti-subordination tool

Prok"ur :\unhwc·.sr e rll lilliversitl School of Lt\\'; Faull tv Fellow, lllstitutc lr>r l'ol­icv RcsurciL P, .. -\. Jl177. Yale LJni1ersit1; Jll. 1980, [-!M•card Law School. Thcmks to mi

henn;uLt [1ny ~istcr -], Lis~t Iglesias. for inYiting nH~ to panicip<HC in this Syn1positun ;tncl to

Sarah l\I e rYinc for research <lssist;tnce .

I. 0-Ltrgaret E. \lnnto:·;t, .\ilence and Si!eurin[!: Their Centripetal and Centr~fugal Forces in

Legal (,'nJil!!!llllitrtlio!l. Pr·dop,D§!,)' and i)isrourse, ~) :..lrCII. J R.ACL S • .: L. S47 (2000). :t-) U. l\IICH.

Jl.. RuuR\1 2li:\ (:.'IIUII ) .

~. . s·,,e id. ;l! ,, \ltt:ll J R.\t.T ,'(: I CH S:i9. '} ' ) ,) : ) L' \!tel! JL REFOIU\1 CIT 21:, .

;"J. Sec ir/. CIT " \[JCJI J R .. \(:J &: I at 1'7'\. :t:?, L' \liCit IL RLFOR!\f at 2S9. 4. Sr't irf. ;tt :) \I! C: fl I R .-\C:L &· I <:tt ~::;;-)2, ~"l :J r_; \ItCH Jl REFOR~\[ ctl 2GS. :). Sn' id. Cit ') \llt:ll I R.\C!: &- I ell 8:-)3, ~~?) U. ~ftC:!!. II RLFOR!\f Cit 2G'I.

Uniuo sity oj1\ lir!u:!l,alljou rJ/(/1 oJLmu Rcjum1

for communi ca ti o n .'' Thus , silen ce o n the part o f wom e n or colo r contains a paraclo:-:: o ur sile n ce maY be a produ ct of oppressio n o r it may be a means of re .~is tance aga in st oppressi o n.

I find Professor l'vlontuya ·s claim that silen ce can be a resistan ce strategy e:-:tremely e nli ghtening ~1nd provocative . The p ro ject of listen ing to the voi ces or outsid e rs Zt!ld ex;unining deviance from d ominant norms fro m their stalldpoint is on e o f the most impor­tant tasks o f critical s c holar.~. ' We uftcn discove r tha t what the dominant society bbe b de\·i;tn cc cunst itutes an act of res istance. Resistan ce theorists res tore th e c riti ca l notio n oC human age ncy, while recognizing th e constra illts of structure a nd hegemony; thev "have atte mp ted to d e monstrate th;tL the m echanisms of soc ia l and culn{ra l rep roduction arc n c\·e r complete and always m eet with partially rea li zed e lenwnts of oppositio n. "' Yet this sc h olarly pur­suit is fraught 1\' itil co m plic tLions ;l!Jd p itfal ls . ! h ave man v questi o ns abo ut th e notion uf silen ce as resistan ce .

In Pan I, I note th e diHic ult) in dist inguishin g between si le ncing and si len ce as resista nce . This clil1ic:t tlry h as often led people in power to misinterpre t the si le n ce of people of co lor. Par t II further e'-.:plores th e co mpli catio ns of in co rpora tin g th e study of sil e n ce into resistance scholarship. I illustra te this complexity by discussing the sil encing of welfare moth ers a nd the use of lan guage by women of color to cha llenge dominant medical discourse . Part III considers Professor tvio ntoya 's pro posal to use sile nce as a peda­gogical tool. Continuin g my exam in a tio n o f silen ce as both libe rating an d accommodating, l distinguish be tween sile nce in the classroom as a m ethod for subve rting the do minant style of speech and silence as re inforceme nt of stude nts' reluctance to ex­press their opinions in class . Fi na lly, using Professor Montoya's story abo u t racist graffiti, Part IV emphasizes that silence may con­stitute complicity in marginalizing disco urse rath e r than resistance

6. Scc irl. a t S 'd tc tLJ IZ.-\CE ,\.: 1 .. at 0:->·1, :;:; l ". \ II CIL.J.l.. REF<> R:\L a t ~7 lJ.

' . Th e wo rk o f Rcgi n ;1 .-\ u>t in a1 HI \ b 1·i ~ l a ts ud a p n .n ·iclc excel lent e x;m•p lc>s of thi s

prL~ject. See gflnerally Regin;t .-\11 q i1t. Blru-li. \\ .onlt l l . . )'isttrlwnd. rrnd tlu· lJlf{tTt l! u>/lJruirnzrr Dividt, ~6 :\ r-:w ENG. l.. Rc\·. S77 ( l (192) : RegiiLl .-\n.stin. SojJjilure l!ounr/ 1• l '189 Wts. 1.. R.E \ ·. :09,'1;

Regina Austin , "The R/ark Co mm un i!_\'. ··/Is rawlnn rlu·;s. and o fJufit irs rif !rltnt;jicntion, fi :"'> S. C.-\1.. 1 .. RE \". 1769 ( 1 9 9~ ) [herein<d"te r , ,\nst in ... n n' /Jiark Cll l/1//lflllily .. ]; !"via l i _1 . i\LiLsucla, Looking to

thP Bottom: Criticfll Lt'gfll Stud it<.\ and Hcf)//mtiom. ~n f-1.\ln· . C. R.-C:. L. l.. Rl , .. ",29, ( I 987) : :Vla r i

.J. .\:lats uda, VoiCt!S of /\uu·rira: .·\nfnl . . -\ ntirlisoimination l .ai.t~. ond r1 J lfl"isjnurhnte fo r lht L ost

Raonslnu:lion . I 00 Y.-\LE I .J I :~ ~~~ ( 1991 )

8. He nry A. Ciro11x, Theo rirs rj"Nepmductio n flllrl Rl'sist rn1 1.'e in th P 1\.'n,, Sociolop,)' ~~"1-~r/uca-lion: A Crit iml :\nolysis, :)", li.IR\·. FllL: c . Rn·. ~ c> 7. :l :)cl ( 1 98'\ ) .

S I'IW\C 2000]

'/'li e Pt~rddtl.Y 4 Silcucc

T!w Pmadox oJSilmrr

'J2')

to that discourse. In short, silen ce provides a fru itful vet compli­

c tted are na of studv for resistan ce sch o la rs.

I. !vlr s tNTERPRET.\T to ;-..;s OF StLE01C F

First , it see ms w:ry hare\ to d istin guis h bet\\-ecn silenc in g fron1 oppression and silen ce as resista nce to opprcssiot L A~ Professo r ivluntoya obse rves, silence "is , in and of itself, ambiguous.·•" fll ­deed, many of Professo r iV[o ntoya's e:-:amples of si le nce ~tre mi~intcrprctations of o utside rs' n OJwerbal conununicati<n1.

1" The

:-;tcrc·orypc and caricar.ure of native peoples as ''the silent lncli ;m'· <lrosc brgdy from fau lty and arrogant studi es by White e thnogra­phns11 Peasant wom e n in Mexico were similarl y cari ctl\tre cl bv rcsc ~trc hers who erased their lin gui stic identities through the h o­mogetuzing label of Inclian .

1" Lawyers for Robvn - Kin<t , a n

Austr<t!i an Abo rigin e charged with murdering h er partner, mi s­construed th e ir client's Aboriginal way of commtmica ti n g.

1

' Th cv were br m ore successfu l at learning Kina's story wlwn , ass isted by the sociolinguist Diana Ead es, they employed Ahorig inal m e thods ot seeking in formation, including "silence, and waitin g ti ll people Me ready to give information. ',\

1 Black Americans, on th e other

h a nd , h ave a tradition of deliberately using ambiguous language to

conceal their thoughts fro m 'White people . I'• Professor Mo ntoya also uses Henumdez v_ N ew Yor!t' to illustrate

Lhe discrimination against lin guistic minoriti es that results from

~~ - \ lun to\'<1. Sltfmt llOlC I. a l 5 \ IJ CI L J R.\CE S.: 1.. :tl 86~-\. :-\:\ L .\lit:! I. J I __ REFOR :\1 «I

~fq.

I II_ See iujirr Jl ntC> 11-:!0. I I. SeP Hontu;·~l , sufna not<: l , .'H 01 i'v!ICI I J R,\<:F. S.: L at Sli-t. ?, '\ l ' \li t: ll Jl __ RE FOin i

;1 t ~KO. I~. Ste id. at :-1 \I JUL! R.\CE S.: L ~ 1 1 8ti/. :~3 L C\ IJ CILJL RFFUI<\I a t ~8 :). !:\. Set 1ri. :.tl :1 \ ·IICII.j. R_\CL S.: L :ttSSti-SS, o,;>, l.'. i'v iiCILJI. . RuuR\1 :tt :',0~-1} 1. 1-1. /d. :tt 'i i'v!ICH-J R.\CE S.: L a t 1-':37. ".'\ U \IIJ:H.JL R F.FOI<\ 1 :tt ' '>11:\ (CjtiU iin,; Di.\ N.\

F. ,\ IJI·:S .. \:-:r:cAt:E JN [ \' IDE NCE: l sscLs CuNFRO>.:TIN C: :\BO RIG JN.\1. ,\Nn \ IL LTi t:L'LT L' I< .-\1.

.-\LSII-L \ 1. 1.\ ~7-~S ( 1995) ) . l ''· Sre l.A\\'RENCL \\'. l. E\' INF , [~L\CK CLLT URE ,\ND B L\C K C:oNst:IllL'S 'iLSS: .-\FRO-

.hiFI,I C.\ N FOLK THOuGHT FRO\ ! S L\\'FRY TO FREEf)0 .\ 1 at xiii (I ,1 77) (qlt<Jiin g sb1e son,;: "Cut

o n e 111i nd for \\·hitc fo lks to see ) ':\other J(H· ,,·h ~ l t I know i.'i rn e. He cl u n" t kno\\ ', he dun't kn< n' n1:· 1nind .. ); Sf't alw Do roth:· E. Rubens. Rt~ :=; t , ._ S t~ lliY: u1 and the r:f)n!nJI of f...'nourf,·rlg,l'. Gl C1-:o.

\1 .. \SIL 1 __ RL\'. c>S7. li '\:i-3li ( 19~1:1) (disn"sing the us e nl' cnunter-si., ril's rlt:<t. ,-, ·s isi ctnd sull\·crt

rhc rlPlnin~tnt ,·er:..-inn of rea lity). IIi. 'iOO l :.s. :t'i'! ( l 9~J I ) .

l)31)

[ 'niw'ls/ty o(\lir111~11;011Jounwl of Law Reforl!l

rnisunckrstancling their silence, pausmg, and hcsitation. 1

' In Hemrmdez, the United States Supreme Court held th<rt <l

prosecutor 's use of pere mptory ch;lllenges to exclude Latinos frmn the jury did not 1·iobte the Latino defendant 's equal protection rights because the prosecutor oifered a race-neutral expl<m;ttion 1

'

The prosecutor justified the peremptory strikes on grounds th,tt the jurors hesitated 11hen asked whether their Spanish ilttencl would make it clifticulr for them to accept the offici;tl Ull1rt

interpreters transbtion. 1' Professor Montov<1 posits tlut till~

prosecutor rniscon struecl the jurors' hesitancv-or silencc-;ts ;t ncg;Hilc response. Thi:s miscommunication became the ha~is for

excluding the Sp;mislt-spcaking jurors and denying the clefend:m t his right to a Lti r trial ln cl j UIY of his peers. These e~am plcs -.;] 1< 1\\

that the silence of people of color IS Cd.-;ih· and 1 Ifteil

m isunclerstoocl.

II. r\C:C0'\1\!0DXJ'ION OR RESIST.-\NC:E?

This ambiguity should make scholars cautious about their own interpretations of silence. Resistance scholarship requires tts tel discern the transformative potential of what is largely a response to subjugation.' 1 The distinction between what is compelled and what is defiance is not always apparent. Moreover, some conduct that superficially appears to oppose the dominant structure actuallv supports it." In searching for subversive acts, we risk helping to reproduce the soci<1l order by mistakenly valorizing behaviors that

17. Sr't .\lonruy~t. sujno tl{ltl' 1. ;l! :-:> \lit:I!.J R.-\CL & L. at 87:1-7~). 3Y> l.T . .\liCII.JL. RL~ FORI\I ;1t ~K9-~l:-:>.

IS. \n· irl. <tl c> \!ret!. J 1-l.\ C F & 1.. ;H ,'-)7-t. y, L'. \lru1. .J.L RvFur,:-r <H "''111 (c iting 1-fcrnonrle:. ,·,un u.s. ;rr '·',,' ,2 ) .

1~). 5;1'f' id. <tt :) i\lJC!l. J R.-\CT S: I .. at 07:-:J. :),?, t.J . ~liC\1. JL. IZLFOR\I at :2~)1 (citittg

Hemrrnrle: , :1 011 L.S. at '1c•l n.l ) .

:20. St'r' it!. <ll c> \ltett.J R.\CF & 1.. <~t 077-i ' J. en L'. ~!JCJt._j.l.. lh:nlR:-1 <ll :2'1:'\-'1:->.

21. f discttss the unnp!cxitit·s of ~eei11g n~~i.-.;LuJce in Dorutb:· E. Rubens, J)t r:_Jiru;n·. r:.~·-

sislr/1/re, rlllrll.rme. I11CJ·l l'T.\Jl L. Rt:v. J 7<) ( l'l~l-1), n:spouding w Rcginot .-\tt,riu ... _ .. \ .\'oiiu•; nj

ThietY S '. sl'(/lf'illg Blru"li f>t'Ojl/e~,- f?i,!.!)il to S/wjJ nnd In si)!L in \\7;itt Anwrira. _\ ~)SJ ~l l ."T_\11 L. RE\' J l7 ( 1 C)() .[ ) .

2 ~. Fur c:-.;.~-nnplc , so n1c t\pcs uf Black bhbrc~tking. such ~-,s ci,·i] disubt·clicnc:.: ufJii!l

Cru,,- Lt,\._'-: or infu n1Ltl ccnno1nic ~tcti,·iry th ~ tl ,-inbtt·s city licensing Ln,·s. 111~1y std)\·c-rr LH:i.-;t

institution . ..;,, \\·hile nth c rs. ~uch ~1s drug clGtling· i11 BLick con1munitics. nl~L,. n·inforcc: thc:.; t·

i nstit u tiun.s . . \"tt' ,[!.l'iltTo/(y .\u."li 11. ·· Fllt-' !Jiock Cul!ttll u niiy. ·· s lljJUl nutc 7.

SU ;V\ J\ IFI( .2 1)()()j

SPR \ '((; ?.000] The Pmadox of.\i/rnce

93 1

347

pcrpe lllate th e dominant mi11 dse r. "' \Vriting about resistance, th en, is a \I"C>rt.hwh ile but trickY busin ess. Can we tell the difference be­tween si le nce that is coerced by repress io n and silence th at is an act of resistanc e? Does outside rs ' sil e n ce in res ponse to dominant speech cha ll e nge the statu ~ quo or simply acq ui esce in it? Profes­sor :vlonto;a wisely co unsels that 11·c should study sil e nc e : "[ \V] e can le ;-trn to h ea r silen ce in ura l and ~~T i t te n communicttions and inquire into its meanin gs.""' Professo r \ tlonrova is ri gh t that our ultimate task is not to figure o ut a th eoretical distincti o n between subjugation and res ist~tnce . bt >t to li sten to those who have bee n silenced so that we might l e~trn h ow to wo rk toward a more just

soci etv. tvlv se nse. lwwever, is tha t most of the instances of silence Pro­

fessor i\lontoya describe -; rd1cct its subordinatin g rath er th an its liberating a:-;pect. Perhap:-; 1111 itnpress ion ~ui scs from m y fam ili arity '''ith Black wom e n 11'1!0 ha\l: bee n pu rr ishcd for their refusa l to

re main silent. "'' Professo r Montoya quotes be ll hooks who also questions the notion of sil e n ce as resistance : '·Ce rtain ly for black \\'Om e n , o ur struggle h as nor bee n to emerge from silence in to speech but to change the nature and d irec tion of our speech, to nuke a speech that compels li steners, o ne that is h eard.""'; Tints, it mig h t be more fruitful for res istance sc holars to explore ways of making Black women's subversive speech more effective, rathe r than focus ing on their silen ce.

A. S'ilenring Weffare j\1others

Two exam ples of Black women 's encounters with dominant dis­course illustrate m y questions about seeing silence as a form of res istance. First, I discuss th e silen cing of Black welfare motl1ers as part of a ritual of humiliation by rbe bureaucrats who supervise

~:''· .<;,,,, if!. al 1700 (".-\praxi s basnl 0 11 a li1e ral Jssoc iatinn of lawbrea kers with race-war

g llc rillas cou ld be _jllstilicd on \\' b Y a gro's 111agn ification of the damage bbck cri min a ls ;tcr u ~ d ly inOi cr on \dl iLc snp rcn1 ~1 c:· :1nd ;1 gruss llli ninli zati on of the i 1 ~j uries the cri tniu als

Glli'L" thc m'"h-cs and o ther b\ ;l(:ks.") . '2-L \l o n tol':t , sufmt no te I . :t t :) \lt CII .J lhcE S.: l.. a t 9ll, ~3 U. lvi! C! I..J.l.. REFORM at

3:27 . 2:,. Sr'r iu.f/·anutt·s '2 /- :-~ I ;tncl ;lee( Hnp:ln yiJJ g text. '!! ·). \\on!oya. sujmt nol e 1. at'' L\li r: II . .J. R.-\t:L & 1.. :ll 872. 3:o U. 1\ li CH.j.l.. R EFOID1 0t

:280 ((] ll <>!ing he: \\ hooks, T!ilkiu g /iru-1;. iii \Lii;J;>-:C LICE, \IAKIC:G S out. / H .s C ILNDO CA lL IS:

CR L \ T li'F .. 1:-: 1> C R!i'I C.IJ. Pi RSi'I.Cri\TS 1\\ v\ 'r" !Et' il F CoLOR 207. 207-08 (C lo ria .-\n zJ lclu:t

eel . I ~I~ ill ) ) .

:Hicili>;ri!J Jouruol o( I<JJCC & Llll '

Univnsity ofJVJichigan JounJaJ of IJ!.W Rrjonn

!Vm. :'1:927

[VoL. 33:3

them. Second, I discuss the use of language by women of color to challenge dominant Ineclical discourse.

Dependence on the government for public assist:mce has sub­jected many women of color to silencing and humiliation bv state agents." vVelfare mothers have been forced to assume<~ submissin-: stance lest offended caseworkers cut them Crnm the rulls-" Lttcie White has t()lcl the poignant story of her cliem's use of a submissive iclentitv as a SlllTival strateg·v durinc: a welfare hc:tring challcn(Tino·

j ~; .' t_] '-' u b

her purchase of Sunday shoes for her daughter. ·· · 1\'otJcompliant recipients risk not only financial sanction~ but also bruu! retalia­tion at the hands of welfare oiTice securitv guards.·"

Lucie White has also noted in another article that the litigation process, the dominant way of settling welbre recipi e nts' claims, has the dlec:t of silencing poor people. '. [ The courtl oont is a for­eign setting that employs discourse to which most poor people are not accttstomecl. "' The judges and lawyers in authorirv constantly interrupt recipients' stories and interpret them <tccording to un­familiar rules and nonns. ' ' In addition , the courtllOlbe e\·okes feelings of terror for manv poor people because thcv associate it with jail and eviction, rather than justice.'"

L.~Joe, one of the mothers in Alex Kotlowitz's Therr Are No Chil­dren Here, experienced such a silencing encounter when we!Ltre fraud investigators charged her with unlawfully sharing her apart­ment with her husband."' Lajoe barely refuted the charges because she did not understand them or the process that was supposed to determine her guilt or innocence: "She spoke so softly that the

'27. Ste Lucie E. \\'hite. Coldberg v. Kelly on the Paradox(~/ !Jlil'_Ytrin.!.!,·)or tlu' }Juor, 56 BROOK. L. Rn·. 1-\111. Sli7 (lCJ'III) (noting the constitutional rcmcclv ill (;ofdlmgi'. f.:ell\' "has

not conlpellcd the go\·e nnnent to trear recipients \vith dignity" ) . :28. See Luci<' E. White, .\11bordinotinn. R!tetrniml Summrti Shills. n od Sruulrn Sluu•s: Notes

011 the 1-fmring of ,\ln. (; .. ~~8 BuFF. L. RE\' 1, .S ( 1990). :!'). ,)'pp id.

''0. .\pe THERESe\ F uN tCIFI.t.O, TYR.\NNY OF h.tNDNESS: DtS.\1.\NTt.l'\. (, TilE \\'ELF.·\RE

SYSTE'>t TO L'.:ll i'mERTY 1:' .-\1>tERJC:,\ :!4 ( 1993).

31 Ser Lucie· L \\'hire, .\lo/;i/iwtion on the Mrngin' ufthe l.rrwsuit: .\lol:ing Sjurrr' for Clients

to Sj!ml:, 16 N.Y.l'- Rn·. 1.. &: Soc:. CHA:-.IGE 5::15. :14:'1 ( 1987-1 1188) [ hc:rt:i ll:drn White , ,\Jo/;i/i· zalion on flu-' i\lrnginsj.

?>:!. Sr·r' 1(/. :lt :01:!-4'\.

33. Set i1!. 3,1. See id. at :',.J:',_

.>:J . S,•tALt-.x KoTt.O\\'tTZ, THFRE ARE No CtttLnRF.'.: HER E : TJtF ST<IRY OF T,,.o BoYs

CRcl\l'tNc UP tN TttE < httER ,\'>tFRILI 'lli (1991 ).

S L :\ \ ,V\1: 1 ~ :211()()1

SPIZJ '\(, ::!0(1() ]

., he l'il rddox <!( Silcucc

T!te f Ja1wlox ufSifeuce

')33

four inquisitors h<tcl to lean i'orwarcl to hear her. '"''; Kotlmvitz de­scribes th e silen cing impac t this humilia ting e'\ pcrience h ad on

La Joe:

Cot Jfused <tnd upset, LaJoe walked sile !Hl)· out of the roum , sLimming th e cluor be hind her. She would late r apo logize to h e r in qu is itors fur her impolite n ess, but she ''oulcln't ulfcr mu ch dcfe JhC against th e department 's charges . S he didn ' t ckn1 tkrt f'<tul o ccasionall y stayed over. She clidn 't <tsk ,,·huitn she '''<IS entitled to legal counsel. She clicln ·L ask ,,·h c th n .she 110ulcl ge t money to feed her childre n. She dici n · t <tsk f'or a casewo rke r to come uur and look at It e r lt (> Jlle. Now. as she rnade h e r way through th e labyrinth of' ck.sks. she '':u t!d e recl h ow LO break the n ews to t:he kids."

l'rolc:,so r \\'hi re proposes that lawye rs h e lp their c li e nts speak out h1 prm idi11 g '·p<tra llcl spaces" outside the fo rmal liti g<rtion procl'•;s ,,·!Jere thL:y can "speak th e ir own stori es of suffering, ac­coumab ili ry and c hange, free from th e techni cal and strategic constr;rints illlposed by the courtroom."'"

H. (:Jwllenging Dominant Medical Discourse

Doctor-patient communication provides anoth e r context where \I"O lll e n of colo r have been penalized for refusi ng to be sile nt. Professor Mrnnoya uses research on silence in doctor-patie nt in­terac tions to illustrate the potential for miscommunicati o n in asymm etri cal power re lationsh ips. ''' Th ese studies condu cted by femin ist resctrch e rs in doctors ' offices confirm l1er h yp oth esis about: th e dual nature of sile n ce. Sue Fish e r and Alexa ndra Dundas Todd have d emonstrated in their st ttcli es o f d octor-patient comnHlttica tio ns that medical decisions reflect the social and po­liti cal context in wh ich they are made."' Fisher a nd Dundas Todd

3\J . /rl. :J, j_ !d. : t{ ~ 17.

:IS. Wh ile. Mol;i/i:otiun on the :Hmgins, sujlra no te ~ 1 , at 5-IG.

: )~J . .)·l'f, \lon to\.,l. :d.tjJ!n n u te 1. at :) ivlicH . J l\_\CE & l.. dt OHS-0{), :t~ U . ~-lt C: Ir. JL

REFOI{\ f ~tl :~0\ -0~ .

' !II. :;,.,..-\i.E" ''""!'-"' DL' 'CIHS To n n. I N TI \1.\TE .-\DI' ER S.-IRJEs: CLi i.T U <:I I. Co"FI. ILT llE-

1\I.LL'C U>J< 'T>IRs ''"'' Wo:<IL' 1'.-ITI E'C'Ts liti-lll ( ! LIS>)) [h crci JlCJ!'ter l.lu'C' IHs To ut>.

hTJ:<LIT E .\lln: ~<> ,\R i rsl; Su: f JSH FR. h T il l' 1'.-\ T IE'C'T 's l\EsT I <'TE RI-sr: \\'o:< IF.'C' ,\'C' II Till·:

l'ouT Jcs o F \ I F.I\IL.\ 1. Du:IsJo0ls 17-1 ~) ( ! 98li) [ lwreinaftcr F1 s H F.R. Uc:s T I 'C TERJ-sr'[: S11e

350 Uuivenlty uflv!ichigan juttntrd of iJlW Re[or111

discove red that th e ph ysicia n 's aurho rity sh apes th e is used during a m ed ical inte rv iew, o ften e nablin g persuade and dominate women patients ."

!Vut. :'>:CJD

[VOL. ::1:):3

way lano-ua<re · b D

p lwsicia ns to

Race, class, and gender all <tffect the nature of th ese inte rac­ti ons. Dundas T odd found in her C> bscrvati ons of docto r-pati ent e ncounters that "th e darke r a '''o man 's sk in and / o r th e lower he r place on the economic sca le, th e poorer th e ca re and efforts at ex­planat io n she received ."'" These wo me n we re rnore likely to be consiclcrecl '·cliili cult" and ·' to be talked down to, scolded, an d patron izecl ." ' '

In Rerunslructin.f.!.· the Patient: Start in!.': with I \Iomeii or Color, I sugyes t u l... ') .__, ;::, ~

that the expe rien ce of both racism ~tncl sexism profo un d ly affects the relations hip wom e n of color haw: w m edical p racti ce and may e nco urage opposition to its upprc:ssin.: aspects.'; The po li tica l di­m e nsion of doctor-patie nt communica ti ons that femini st scholars ide n tifi ed is more apparent wh e n th e pati e nt is a woman o f colo r."'' These women rece ive inferior care and, because they ofte n re lv on public clinics, they are less likely lO e njoy private, protective rela­tionships with their docto rs ."; Moreove r , th ese ·women may be more willing to resist m edi cal su pervision beca use they a rc more suspicious of do ctors ' claims of beneficence." Thus , examining communication between women of color and th eir physicians may provide insight in to modes of resistance. I d o not see sil ence, how­ever, as a tool th ese women use; rather, I see these women as adopting a language that challe nges the d ominant terms of medi­cal practice.

In h er field study of the cultural meaning of prenatal diagnosis in New York City, for example, anthropologist Rayna Rapp discov­ered race and class varia tion in women 's descriptions for their

Fi sher & Alexandra Dundas Todd, Friendly Ptm uruion: Negotiating /Jerisions to U\1' Om/ Cont m­

cefJtives, i n DISCOURSE ANU INST IT V T ((JX,\L Ai.JTHOR IT Y: lvl ED IC I NE. Eoucxnox AXD 1 . .->.w 3 (Sue Fisher & Alexand ra Dundas Todd eels., 1986) [h ereinafter Fish er & Dundas Toclcl, Ii·iendl} l't iS/taSion ] .

41. Sre Duxo.->.s ToDD, I NTI:\L\TE AD\"ER S.\RIES, sujJIIt note 40, at -l/-/CJ: FISIIFR, 1)~-:sT

INTEREST, SlljHa note 40. ct l :)9-8~1: Fisher & Dundas Toclcl. Friendly l'nsu asiou , sujml note 40, at 3.

42. 43.

Dui'DAS Toou , I NTI~L\TE A ovERS ,\R IES, supm n o t<' 40 , at 77 .. ! d.

44. See Dorothy E. Roberts, Ft.econstru cting the Patient: Sta!'/ing: with \-\ 'om til t?f Co!m; in FH!INlSi\1 ANn fliOETIIIC: S 1 16. Ill (Susan M. Wolf cd .. I '1 111) )

45. See id. a t 1 17. 46. See id. 4/. Ste id.

SLJ.\L\\ LH 2()UIIj

Si'JW\L :!000]

7'/ic l\irc~d,,x '!( Silcucc

'/ he l'r1mdnx ofSilence

;mmioce ntcsis decision.' ' Most middlc-cl<t.~s wom e n (who were dis­proportionate ly \Vhite) <tcceptc cl <tmni occntcs is in \1·orcls that i·t:scmbled traditional mcclic:J.l language. Poorer Hlac:k women, on th e nthcr h<llld , "were Llr less likelY to e ither accept, or be Lrans­l( m n ccl by, th e medical discourse o( prenatal diagnosis. "'' ' These 11·ome11 o ften e :--:plainccl their d ec ision e ither to usc or lO re ject ;u11niuce ntesis in terms of nonm ediGt! -;1st c ms o[' illt t:rpreting their pregnan cies, including re ligion , 1is in1 h , dncl folk healing .. '" Rapp c<mc!u cle d that " [p]<1r<ldox icalh·, \Yl1i 1c m iddl c-cbss wo m e n are lH >th bcacr scn·ed by re productin: mc·di c inc, ancl also murc con­tro l lt-d b1 it , them women of less privik ~~t:cl ~rouns. · · ·"

' ' , , J

D<~cto rs ' clism issi1·e or cn:n <tJlt<~gonistic attitudes tn11·ard p<t-rit·ills of' color may h e partly rct;di;ttiun fur their oppo~iriun tn

cl:>mill;!Jll m edical norms. Th e re i:; e1·ick nce, fc>r example. t!Ltt

doctors are rnore likely lO force llll:di ca l trcaun e nr. upon minority p~ttictllS. A national survey published i11 1987 discovered twemy­U ilC cases in 11'11i ch court orders fur imulunury ccs<t rc;uJ sec tion s 11'Uc sought, e ighty-six pe rcent of whi ch '''ere granted ... " Eighty-on e percent of tl1 e women involved \vere 11·om e n of co lor, and al l were Lreatecl in a teaching-hospi tal or \I'Cre re ce ivin g public assistance. ···· Like th e women in Rayna Rapp 's swdy, so me women force d to undergo surgery expla ined their refus~ll to foll ow the do ctor 's or­ders in nonmedical terms. For example, J essie Mae J efferson rejec ted her doctor's r ecommendation of cesarean delivery b e­ccwse of her re ligious be lief that "the Lord h as healed h e r body and that whatever happens to the child will b e the Lord's will." ·,,

Judges and d octors ofte n dismiss these explanations not expressed in th e dominant medical language as ill egitimate . They describe pregna nt women of color who refuse medical treatment as angry,

-!8. .r.·)ce Rayna R~tp p, Constru cliug .-\ mniot:t n lt>sis: .i\lntrrnu_/ rnul 1\lerlirn l Distour.ses. in L1:\' -

Cii<T.\I ~ TLI<i\ IS: ~H:tHL\TINC Cu-wLR 11-: .-\ ,\IERI< ,\N Cu t.lTRF :!11, '\0 (Fa>·e Ginsburg &

.-\ nna LOII'L' nhaup t Tsing eds .. 1000) .

J' J. /d. ;c t3 1- 'l2. ;,o_ Srr id.

:1 I. It!. cct -lil.

''~- .')p,• \'nonika E. I\. E.ul der <"I al., C<JIII't-Ouim·d Uils/clrimi 111/0wnlions. :·\ lli ;'\!, F01c. J \ ]E ll. ]] 0:! , ] ] C):' ( J9il7).

:1:) . Sec id.; sr'l' o/.so JaneZln .-\cc\·ado Daniels. Lollri-Orr!nnl r:·,,srnt.'anc .-\ Gnrwiug Con (rrn

j(n· lllfligotl \\IJIJU'il, ~~ Cu::..-\RINCHOUSE R E\ ·. lUC---L IOG:·J (1~1 88) (cu n1paring gener;tl distri­

bu ti()\J of CCS<t rt'an SeC tio ns \\·ith rh;H of Ce.-;arecllb pcrr(.JJ'IJH:· d pursuant lu COUrt order) .

,c, J. .J c· IT<: rsun \'. Crillin Spaldin g Cu ti! H\' ll usp .. -\till> .. :!7! S.E.2d -!eli. -1:-,<J ( C: a. Eltil ) .

F( J\" :1 d iscussi ~._ lll o r th is :tnd u ril cr furred cc.":ll"l'~-111 St: Ci ion CtSl'S. SC L' Li s:t c. lk t •l) lO lO , Tlu·

( 'ode 1:{/>tlji:rt l)tPgnrti/ C ~\' : .--lt lhl' fl!l f' rStctiou r~f"!lu.' ldro.'o.!.!.y t:{.\lo!htr!wod. !lw J->rart irr r~j'!Jc.f{ru/ting

lu Sric/11'1', 1111rl lil t l n!uvm liun is l Mindvl uj / .r;u-. ,-,: ; I ) IJ IU ST. l .,J. 1~0:), l~ ·HJ--1() ( l ~LJ:! )

[ h~_· reii J :Jf:er l kcnHHO. fJn_jfy f Pr,-:s:J;n art(\'].

.\flclu:'(<lll)ounwl o(Racc D Lm1·

Ullh'I'ISily oj,\lichigaufou.rrw! of Low Rrform

irrational, fearful , stubborn, selfish, and ur1cooperatin~. The medical rnoclel oC c:hilclbirth interprets th ese women's wore!.~ rn a w;n: rhatjustifies the doctors ' control.

The paradox Rapp noted with respect to amniocentesi::; deci­sions is oresent in the context of forced medical intervention.~ as l

\ITII. It appears that \Vhite miclclle-class women more rcac!ih corJ­sc JH to their doctors' recommendations of ccsare:m surgcrie.~. t'\ en tlrough these surgeries ;tre performed at excessin· r;ttcs.···· \\omen of color, on the other band, appear more 11·illing to reject their doctors ' orders. as well as the dominant m edical bnguagc. -·' I sus­pl'C:t their opposition stems both from an alternative cultttral 1 ic\\' oC birth and their distrust uf medical authoritv. i'\<utn· Ehrenreich suggests that the court-ordered treatment of 110111t:n of culor rna1 constilllte a cocrci1e response to their acts of resistanc-e to doctors ' control of their childbearing.-·'

III. SruNc:E .-\S PED.-\COGIC.\L Toor.

Professor Montoya proposes that law professors use silence as a pedagogical tool to challenge the stifling eflects of the dominant communication style of the \Vhite m<uority. Professor Montoya asserts that silence "can be a significant positive signal to students of color that their language patterns are not deficient." "" Because of silence's ambiguity, this use of silence also raises questions. What exactly is the purpose of our deliberate use of sil e nce?

One possibility is that by employing silence, the professor sub­verts the dominant style of speech in law school classrooms. By

;);). See Lisa C. Ikcmoto. Furtlierinp; the lnr;ui1)': Rurr, Ct~r,s. ond Cullurf) in the Forrnl .\ledi-

ml'frmlllln!lnjl'ugn"nl 1\'ol!len , :~Jl) TEN\:. L. Rn· -tS7, SO:! (19CJ~): Rotpp . sujnrtnote -IS. at :r~.

,-Jii. Se,• Council un Etilicd :mel) tHlici:d c\thirs, JJ/ruk-White l!iljillnl11•s in Hm/th Crm•. '.'td

J -\\L\ 2'1 -+4, :23-+S (1990) (reporting that lln'-\Ta r swdy of clcliH'rics in l(>ur '\ew Y<!rk C:ir1·

lttJspitals found th :u '·pri\·:lte p~ltierlls \n:Te n1urc likely th;Jn clinic p~tricnrs to ha,·c a ccs;tr­

G\11 sccriun. eYcu though the pri,·::ne patients ,,·ere less likel·y to h;t\·e nledical prubletns ur to h e cklilercd ofJm,·-binh-lleighr h<lbies") ; Linda F .. i\ lonroc, Ajflnent\\i!llll'll h oire os /. i/;1'/y 01

?nor to 1-fm,e Cesrn'<'rm Births,!...\. Tr\tEs,July '27 , 1989, at 3.

:J 1 s,.,, lkcnwto , l'n.Ji'ct l'ugnti!H\', .wpm nute 54. at 001-02: R<1pp, snjno note ·I S, at :-10. . :,s. See N:mc1· Ehrenre ich. FhP Coloni:ation of the 1\ om!J. ·JS\ Dcu LJ ·l"1'2, :)'20-li:-J

( l 9CJ'n

''''· St•t .\lontOI:t, snjm1 norc I, :tl oJ .\lrCJr. J R.-\CE & L :ll 879-8'2. :1'\ L .\IJC:I 1. Jl .. Ru--oR\r ~tt ~~):J-90.

hO. ;\loutu,·a. Sll/Jrt!llotc 1. ;tt :) \ItCII.J R:\ C E & I.. a! S56, :\3 t__: _ \I!t:H.JL. RFF()R\f :!t

'2/Y..

SU t\1iV1FIZ 21)(11lj

SPR!l\C 2000] Tilt Pamdox oJSi!enre

l)37

breaking through th e Ltst-pacccl aggressive banter, typically d o mi­nated by vVhite male students , silence allows less aggressive students of colo r to compo se their thoughts and to participate. A recent opinio n pi ece hv Rubert Schaeffer , the Director of Public Education for FairTcst. ~~ group advocating testing re form , ex­plained whv vinu;tll v ~1il the co nt.estants on the popular game show ~Vho \Vrw.ls to !x a :\Iil!iunoiJI' ~u -c 'vVhite men. '·

1

The selection process begins with a cdl-in qu a liJ\·ing round in which candidates are ;1skecl three mu!tip;u t gen c r;·tl kn owledge questions.'" A co ntestant has only ten sec ()ncls to r espond to each question by pres~ing the telephone kcvpacl. '' Thi~; tvpe of testing is likely to favor vVhitc men ;mel to r u le 011t wun1 c n ~tnd people of color:

A large body ul rcscuch 1n1 standardized testing shows that responding qui cklv ro rectll-basecL multipl e cho ice items in a high-pressure setting is a skill in which men in gene ral, and brash \Vhite tnctl in particular, excel. \Nomen do bette r when time constraints ;trc relaxed , when subtleties matter, and when "strategic guessing" is not rewarded. ''·'

The same is true for many minorities. This insight on how standardized testing puts outsiders at a dis­

advantage supports Professor Montoya's suggestions for law teaching. It suggests that the fast pace of law school discussions, like standardized testing, may b e more comfortable for vVhite male students than for others and that the pauses created by silence may encourage female and minority students to participate more.

Another interpretation of Professor Montoya's proposal is that professors should affirm the silence of students of color by model­ing similar communication patterns. '''' I am more skeptical of this possible pedagogical method. I imagine tnany students of color who are silent ha\e answers and opinions racing through the ir minds but are too intimidated or uncomfortable to articulate them. Professor Montoya recounts student confessions to her

6 1. See Rllben Scli acile r. 1\'h o \\ .on/' to !Je" Cunlrstontl. \!Y. Tr\IES, Feb. 19 . '2000, a t

,\h.

b:2. Sec irl.

li 'l. Sl'e i!l.

i).f /d .

li:>. Sn· irl. lili. Si!r \ •[<J!ll O\ :c \1/jmi ""''. I. ill c, \!rCJI. .J. RM~E & L en 87'J-8 ~, 33 L'. \li CII. JL

RLFOR~.l ;lt ::2 ~);)-~)0 .

3:)4 [VoL. 33:3

about panic att~tcb caused by the fear of spc~tking lll class.''' Our goal for these students of color should be tu help them speak up more rather than to encourage them to remain silent.

One reason Professor Montoya giYes for the silence of students of color is the elision of race, gender, and sexual orientation from traditional legal reasoning. Professor Montoya expbins, ·'[t]he si­lencing of racialized infonnation is Ltrgclv wh1· thL: Lt\\' feels alien and alienating to those for whom race or other identity character­istics are rcdit1·-clcfining and often the starting point fur legal ;.malysis."'' Mv experience in the classroon1 sugg,·sts that stuclems of color themselves em help to incorporate racializcd information into the curriculum. For the bst t\1'0 \'Cars r han: h;td no African American men in my [irst-Yt~ ar crimin;d ]a,,. class. l notice their ab­sence most at th e very end of the course when we discuss PeujJle v. GoeLz.."'' The case concerns the reasonablene~s of Bernhard Goetz's belief that deadly force was necessary when four BLtck teenagers approached Goetz on <1 New York City subwaY Clr asking for money. Everyone knows the issue that made this ctsc so explosive was whether it was reasonable for Goetz to take into account the race of the teenagers in deciding that his life was in jeopardy.'(< If no student is willing to bring this C]Uestion ro the forefront, I do. But the ensuing discussion is markedly different wh e n there arc no Black men in the class than when there arc, especially if they are willing to speak up. Black male students often add a missing per­spective, explaining from their own experience the dangers of using racial stereotypes about Black criminality as a basis for de­terminations of reasonableness.

At Rutgers Law School in Newark, where I previously taught, a strong minority student program ensured that there were always vocal Black students in my classes. The school's affirmative action program sought to admit a substantial number of minority and disadvantaged White applicants. 1t also oiTerecl programs during the school year to help students admitted through this process ex­cel in class work and participate in classroom discussion and other school activities. One year a particularly militant Black man took a

67. See id. at :'i I'v[tCH . .J. K~cE & L. at 88'2, 'U U. 1vltCt!.J.L REFUR1>1 at '2'18. (i8. !d. at Cl \'ltCH.J RACE & L. :H 89'2, 33 L'. \ltcH._j.L.. REHJIOI at :',08. (i0. :)3'2 N .E.:?d 127", (:<.Y. l CJ8R).

70. On the re ;.tsnn~tblcncss of s tert'Otypt-~s of BLtck crilnitLtlir:· :·;(T gc·J1c:r~lll: Jocly D.

,-\nnuur. Rorp fjJ.:·;(f L!Hjllitur: q{RertSIJ!/flblr: nrt(ish, !nte/lige!lt 13u_)"f'Siuus . f(!ir/ !truoluntary S'tgro­J;flr,/Hs, Iii S L\:>:. L. Ru. IR I ( 1 0~1-1 ) (anal\";ing tht: prucbitned "r""" ''"'IJkness" of

'ltTl'Ol\pcs ot lllack crirni n:di t\ 1.

Sutvli\\LH 21111111

SPRl"iC :2000 J

}"/ic Pt~r<Zd,,x c1( Si!CIJ<"C

The Paradox u[Sifrnce

\Vhite student to task for suggesting that it was reasonable for Coetz to base his decision on racial stereotypes. l-Ie 11cnt on to in­struct his classm~ttes on the damaging impact this son of thinking has 011 people like him. A . .fter class, a \!1/hite female student cor­nered me to cnmplain about how I had handled the discussion. She achiscd me tl1at I should have silenced the Black student be­cause his comments about vVhite racism were o!TensiH· Lo \Vhite stuclenh. (Other \Vhite students, on the other hand, told me the\ found the discussion enlightening.) I responded Lint the l)bck student hacl added important and relevant insight on tht: question of re;tsonahlcncss and it would have been wrong [, >r me to forbid

him to speak.

IV. SILENCE AS COi\ll'UCIT\'

It is not clear that silence will aid in inserting forgoneu aspects of iclen ti tv in to the classroom discussion. l ncleccl. Professor 1VIontohl recognizes that maintaining silence about our reality in the Etce of the dominant discourse is not onlv dilliculL. but mav make us "comjJ{icit in one's own marginalizatio~."' 1

Far from being a tool of resistance, silence in the classroom or the courtroom may be a form of accommodation.

Professor i'vlontoya's personal story about silence and silencing illustrates this point. Professor Montoya's response to the vicious graffiti in the bathroom was not to remain silent. She reported the incident to the clean. vVhen she found the clean's response in­adequate, she took further action. First she and her husband returned to the school and covered the graffiti with black spray paint. Then she wrote an open letter to the graffiti writer.'

1 Sig­

nificantly. she inciuclecl the following statement condemning silence: ·'Grafli.ti of the kind you wrote is hate speech and it can only be countered by being responded to. Silence in the j(ue of hale speech /1/ahes us aU wmj;licit."'"'

However, Professor Montoya never published the letter. b·en todav, she grapples with the paradox of silence [highlight here: "It

71 \lontoy~L sujnanote J, at 5 ?vircH.j. J{,\CE & L. at 892 , :.r~ U. :-.IlLI-i.JL. REFOR\1 ~1t

:lOR (elnpiLtSis ;!ddcd ) 7'!.. St 't' }(/, ;tt :) \It u 1 J R.1<:F :<.: ] . ;-\t SillS. '\:\ l' 'd IC:Il. .f.L. REFOI<\1 ;t( :·,~I.

7''.. See 1d. a! _"j \IIC:ll .J. RACE:<..- l. at 90Ci, '\?, U. illiCII.j.L. REFOR\1 at :',~'.' .

/ -1. See 11/. /:). !d.

'J -W

UnlzwJi ily o/Altchiga Jtjot tn/(/l ofLmu l?efcmn [Vo t. ~U: '1

is h;1rcl to know wha t g ives m e g rea te r powe r- lt o lding sil e nce or breakin g silence. "'" Read ing h e r g ripping sto rv, I understand the pres~urc to rem ain sile nt, to avo id stir rin g up any more atte ntion to th e cbmaging words . Yet I find it hard to see silence as resis­tan ce in this case. H ow d id re maining siknt g ive h er ··g reater pm,·cr··: In the end, Professor iVI o ntoya concludes th a t h er silence w;ts noi vo luntary, but th e very ol~jec tive o f th e gralliti \ITiter .'' She states tkiL were th e in cide nt to happen today, sh e would broadcast th e offend ing words rathe r than keep quiet abu ut th e m. '' T hus , ;1. lthough Professo r Mo ntoya cons ide rs th e possibi lity th at h o lding s il e nce migh t be a fo rm of res is ta nce, she co n cludes th at in thi s in stat tlT .~ il e n ce cons tituted just the o pposite-compli city \1·irlt the vet-:: forct's tlt;tt sought to degrade her.

Pn,fcsso r !'v ! ontoya'~ storv about th e graffi ti illustrat es perfectly th e ri\ ks inherent in inte rpre tin g sil e nce as a for m o f resis ta nce . lt mi ght be tempting to sec her sil e nce as a vo lu ntary response that gd\·c h e r powe r against th e perpetrato r 's act of subordina tion. But Profl:.~sor Montoya's subsequ e nt reflections reveal that this misin­te rprt:ts he r ambi gu o us reaction. In fact, h e r silence was n o t a n act of defian ce , but a silencing inte nded by th e \\Tite r. Acqui esce n ce in th e wi ll of the oppressor by maintaining sil en ce can even co nsti­nne co mplicitous part icipation in o ne's own subordination. This docs n ut m ean th at silence is n eve r an act of res istance. But Profes­so r Mon toya's experience hig hlights the care sch o lars must take in inte rpreting sile n ce as resistance.

CoNCLUStON

Professor iVIo n toya includes in her ess::t.y a strong message against sil ence: "vVe must learn to talk about th e deep issu es in law and cu lture, to open ly debate th e m rather than smoth e r th em in sil en ce .··"' T his will on ly happe n wh en o u r stud e nts of colo r speak up anc\ res ist th e silen cing impact o f the dominant discourse. Al­though sil e nce may sometim es be a m eans of res istan ce, silence is often the very obj ec tive of subord inating forces . Remaini ng silent in th e t~1 ce of injttsti ce may even turn people into accompli ces m

76. /r/ . ell :'> '. fi C! Ij. R.-ICF. & t. . :ll ~107. "\?, l'. '.! ICir.j.l.. REFUR ~I ell '\23. 77 Sl"t irl . 70. .\er ir/. "I:) '.I!CII.J. \\..·IC E & l.. at ~1() 8, '\'\ l:. ivliCir.j.L. REFO IU .I :11 '\2 -L

7~1. /rl. :u ,-, ~ II CII. J RN:E & l.. ell S'l4, ~.:1 L" . '.i!CI! . .J.I.. RHOR\1 ell 'l \1.1 (quoting Dirk

Tillu~>•>~L t:'"'"itmi<>lta l F.r,ci sm (u n pu blished Ill <t tluscript , on file 11·i rh au th o r )) .

Sl! i\\,\\\H :2111HlJ

SPRl :-;c :!OOU I The Prmulox of Silmrc

l)-il

injustice. Black wom en 's ex pe rience in we lL1re and doctors ' ollices sho\\S that silencing is a p011·erfu l tool LO re info rce subordination , 11·hilc Llllguage can be a powe rful too l to resi .st the dominant Ininclsct. As scholars . we must be attendant to th e ri sks of misinte r­preting silence . As professors, we must stucl\· nur stude nts' modes of communication to de termine 11·hi ch pe rpetuat e their own si­le ncing and 11'hich resist it. \Vc must clnclop ; t re pertoire of ped <lgogic:al too ls, including silence . to help them res ist more . Pro­kssor i\iontoya's thou gh tful exeges is on silcn c(· makes <t il

important co ntribution to thi s project.