Can Experience Combat Stereotypes? Specialization, Identity and Influence

• In Event: Experience Matters: Leveraging Insights from Supreme Court Lawyers and Beyond

Abstract

Politicians and advocates have attempted to increase the presence of underrepresented groups in the federal courts in the hopes of forming democratic institutions that better reflect our diverse society. Yet recent research indicates that the contributions of judges from these groups are undervalued, indicating that stereotypes affect evaluations of competence and, ultimately, recognition of ideas. Building on this research, we investigate the extent to which judges from these groups can counteract biases by specializing in an area of law through increased experience. Judges’ level of specialization could make subordinates believe that they must follow the lead of these superiors because of their requisite subject-matter expertise, enhancing the level of compliance. We employ citation analysis to test whether judges with greater experience in an area of law are able to catch the attention of lower courts and have greater influence in the development of policy. We focus on a salient area of law, asylum cases, expecting to find that judges with increased exposure to asylum claims will be more influential, as measured by citations by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the adjudicative body making immigration policy for the nation. Our findings speak to important debates about the extent to which stereotypes, as opposed to accomplishments, determine whose ideas receive recognition.

Authors

• Maureen Stobb, Georgia Southern University

• Joshua Kennedy