Annie Kuo: Welcome to Discovery, a şěĚŇĘÓƵ podcast where we interview the law school’s distinguished guests and experts from around the world. I'm your host Annie Kuo. On this episode we have a real treat for our listeners, a conversation with Washington Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener. Justice Whitener was recently the keynote speaker at şěĚŇĘÓƵ’s Public Interest Law Association Gala, this year themed “How Me Becomes We.” She gave incredibly inspirational remarks that we're going get into on this podcast.
Justice Whitener was appointed to the Washington State Supreme Court in April 2020. So, she has been a virtual Supreme Court Justice the past couple of years. She is well recognized by the legal community for her commitment to justice and equity. And Justice Whitener regularly speaks on human rights, access to justice and the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure the right of all who appear before the court to basic dignity and respect in judicial proceedings.
She is the first Black woman to serve on the Washington Supreme Court, the fourth immigrant born justice and the first Black LGBTQ Supreme Court judge in the state of Washington. Welcome Justice Whitener. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Helen Whitener: Thank you for having me.
AK: In your remarks to our PILA gala audience, you mentioned that you have privilege because of your role on the Supreme Court bench. But when you shed your robe and go out into society, you may no longer hold that privilege visually because of who you are. Would you explain that to our audience?
GHW: Well, as you indicated, in your introduction, I belong to a number of marginalized groups. I identify as a Black female. I'm an immigrant, born in Trinidad and Tobago, raised there as well. I'm also LGBT, the second on our court. I identify as someone with a disability. So, when I said my statement in regards to the robe, it really means that the robe signifies the judiciary and there is a lot of deference and protocols, tradition that goes with wearing the robe. And it garners respect. However, when I take that role off at the end of my day, and I venture out into society, I don't walk around with a black robe on. So, what I walk around in is my black skin, and being a woman. And that is what society sees. And that is how I am treated. So, all of the stereotypes and biases that goes towards Black woman in the American society, I have experienced those things. And I continue to experience those things even though I sit on the Supreme Court.
AK: So, in your TED talk through the Port of Spain on self-identity and worth, you cover that labels are these predetermined codes by society that limit our potential. They often marginalize and disenfranchise us from opportunity and ignore the multi-dimensional layer of a person's identity. And you hold so many of these lived experiences that add value when you're sitting on the bench, because you have a particular lens that covers a lot of different areas of diversity. You mentioned in that TED Talk that your paralysis introduced you to ableism, that you came out to your parents at age 19. And you know, they had different reactions where you reckoned with this area of respect from others, self-respect. You cover these three V's and three R's that I'd love if you be willing to cover with the audience. Could you speak a little bit about how labels are connected to this need for reevaluating ways to equity and respect.
GHW: Using labels—the way they're used to separate us or disenfranchise a group of people—is harmful. It's really meant to just identify one person from another, but society tends to use them in conjunction with biases and stereotypes. And normally those biases and stereotypes end up controlling how those labels are utilized and define an individual. It ends up limiting opportunities and means of advancement for marginalized groups of people. When you separate out those labels, you will realize there are a number of biases that attach to them and those biases are basically limiting an individual's potential. So, when you couple, one on top of the other, and on top of the other the intersecting of all of these different labeling, it is surprising that I made it to where I am. And I think that is what connects me with a number of people. They try to figure out how was I able to do that. And I start first by pointing out these are society's labels. I don't make them mine. And I think that mindset is what made the difference in regards to how I maneuver through this world.
Others may not expect much from me, but I expect a lot from myself. So, that, I think is how those labels can be used in a harmful manner. But I also think the way I have addressed them, and the way I deal with them from my own personal life, is one way of overcoming or transcending the identity labels, societal labels
AK: Right, and you mentioned in your TED Talk, that you chose to take action into transcending those labels, and to identify a way in which you would move about in the world.
GHW: That's right. I grew up hearing Dr. King's speech,” I Have a Dream.” And we're 50 some odd years later, because it was said before I was born, but it was said in the year that I was born. And we're 50 some odd years later and I'm still hearing people talk about having a dream. And I made my mind up real early: it's wonderful to dream, but you need to take the dream and create action plans and implement them. And I think that's what his true message was about. Not just dreaming and hoping and all these wonderful things. But it's creating an action plan and going after it and not letting labels or these sorts of things that are coming from society, limit your potential. We all have potential within us. It's these external factors that shut us down. And I think if we look inward and grow ourselves inward, and then connect outward, it helps. Because you're not looking for your satisfaction or acceptance from external places. You've found within, within your own self-worth.
AK: It's a wonderful reminder of the fact that we can create change, not only in our own worlds, but by being right with ourselves. And having that self-respect we can then go out and be vocal—those three V’s: vocal, vigilant and visible, and the three R's: have that respect, be responsible to oneself, and then thus be right with ourselves and others. That's part of that prescriptive action plan from Justice Whitener.
You shared two poems with the pillar gala audience. They are titled “Resilience” and “Today,” and we're hoping to share those poems with our audience on our podcast show notes, which lives on the şěĚŇĘÓƵ website. Could you tell us about your relationship between poetry and the law?
GHW: I think poetry is a means of expressing one's inner feeling at a particular point in time. And I tend to—yes, I'm vocal; yes, I'm visible; and yes, I'm vigilant about things. But I'm also very private in a way. And I tend to put my thoughts and my feelings down on paper, or, you know, on a computer now, if so to speak. And I think it's important to not lose that authentic voice. So, for me, when I use the law, and I look at the law and I work within the law, I don't lose my authentic self, you see it in my decisions. Someone even said, some of my speeches appear to be poetic, in the rhythm of how I deliver them. So, it is part of who I am. And I think it probably is part of my decisions on the court. There's a rhythm to what I'm saying. I think it just keeps me grounded and authentic.
AK: Yes, I was just telling Greg that your speeches are like poetry. There is a rhythm to it. There's a cadence and it's beautiful to listen to.
What were the messages you meant to convey through those poems that you read to this particular group of public interest attorney trainees?
GHW: Well, if I remember correctly, I read “Resilience” and “Today.” I wanted them to understand, first and foremost, the value they bring to public interest law because their perspective is the man on the street’s perspective. And when I wrote that poem during a time when—actually it was right around the time President Obama became president—and there was this talk about our post-racial environment, that we were now in a post-racial environment. I kept thinking, I don't know what environment that is, but today, you know, it still seems like the plantation from yesterday is the chains from today, and the prisons of today. So, that point was written with that mind set, you know, today is really where Dr. King envisioned us being isn't really where I think most of us thought we wouldn't be. It's a wonderful day, you know, at that time, but let's not forget we still have a lot of work to do for tomorrow to be what it should be today.
And then resilience, again, in thinking about the times that we were in, which was the administration that followed, things changed so radically that I found myself thinking about, wow, you know, resilience is needed here. And how are we going to get through this? And again, my, my feelings and my emotions at that time came out in regards to that poem at that point in time.
AK: Yes, they were very beautifully written. And I love that you were able to read two poems to us. Very inspirational.
I'm wondering if you could explain your suggestions to the students training to be public interest lawyers, in the context of the shift from the 1960s movements, and the loss of focus, you know, that you remarked we’ve unfortunately had in public interest law, falling prey to individualism. How can we get from justice for a few to justice for all?
GHW: Again, understanding your history, and not forgetting the importance of history—you don't have to be bound by history—but you need to understand what got us where we are. And for me, when I had to think about public interest law, my thoughts were, well, in the 60s, because when I was coming through law school in the 1995 time frame, we were talking about things like the King gentleman in California—the beating of Rodney King. And I remember drawing a parallel between that, and Dr. Martin Luther King, and I was like, what's going on here? Are we just, is it cyclical? Are we just repeating and why are we repeating the same things? And to me, the movement in the 60s, where public interest law really came about, the focus was about us, taking care of us, to move us forward. Somewhere along the line, that change from us to I'm going to move forward at the expense of everyone else. So, there was a change in the generational thinking across the decades. And I kept wondering, what can we do to get back to thinking of this as a us problem, and not a silo thing?
In the 60s, when they were thinking of the us problem and trying to address it as a US problem. They were addressing the problems in silos. So, race, and then you know, gender, and LGBT wasn't even being discussed at the time. ADA issues were, but everybody was doing it in separate groups. And I wondered if that is why the cycle just kept repeating itself, because we can learn so much from each other, and from each other's movement. And today, I think that's what is needed, us coming back to the us. And that's probably what led us to these different separated identities, addressing it separately, but bringing it back to the core of the movement back in the 60s, which was us taking care of us. But we have to do it differently, because we should learn from why that was not successful. And for some people, it was very successful in their thinking, but I would challenge that because if it was successful, why are we repeating or repeatedly having to address the same problem time and time again?
So, my charge to the public law interest attorneys is come up with new solutions for the old problems. But do it collectively and understand that these issues and these problems first have to be acknowledged as problems, but second have to be acknowledged as problems that intersect. And therefore, don't be repeating the work of another group. All of you should be working together to move the agenda forward. Because they're all fighting for the same thing, which is just treatment for all. And at the end of the day, you can't treat one group justly at the expense of another. And a good example is, you cannot praise me, or move me forward when I can be married to a woman as a lesbian, but then shun my transgender brother and sister because of who they are. And they can't use a bathroom, for example. Another good example that even in regards to that bathroom thing, it's a dignity and respect thing. And back in the 60s, we had, you know, people looking at Jim Crow, and trying to figure out how do we move away from that way of thinking with separate bathrooms. That's what that was about, you know, separation in schools, it was an attempt to address those inequities. And they addressed them through a lens of equality. Let’s make everybody equal. That didn't work. And the reason it didn't work, the way they thought it should, is because we're not all equal. So, giving us the same piece, same amount of the pie didn't equalize anything. It just made everybody move up a little bit and it was still, you know, inequities there.
The focus today: move more towards addressing inequities. And, more or less, giving people what they need, so they can support at their best at their level. That is equalizing the situation. So, someone in a wheelchair, for example, will need more support, depending on what it is we're addressing, than someone who's able-bodied. So, it's being able to see yourself bigger than yourself.
AK: So, I wonder if you'd be willing to comment on the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the significance on a community and individual level of her confirmation to the US Supreme Court.
GHW: Her confirmation is the ultimate recognition for Black women—professional Black woman—but I believe Black women as a whole, but on a completely different level because of the court that she's going to be sitting on. Her ascension to that court is truly significant, historically, not just because she's going to be the first Black female Supreme Court justice on the United States Supreme Court, but because she has overcome so many hurdles and barriers that are mirrors of the society that we live within, that she's really the true, the first true justice for all—all—and that includes white men, which is so funny in a way because they struggled so hard to keep her from getting there. But she more than most understands because of her public service. That’s the other thing that she brings, that's quite different from others.
She has a very privileged education background. But then she chose to go back to public service, to give back to the community at large. And she was not just representing Black women. This is what I had to point out to people. She was representing the American legal system because she could have gotten a job in any large firm anywhere in the United States. But she chose public service. And she chose it to represent individuals who needed a lawyer, who needed representation, who needed to have a voice in court to speak on their behalf and the presence and the common sense to know what that meant. That is why she is the justice for all because I can tell you having been a prosecutor and a public defender myself she didn't get to choose her clients. So, her clients covered every spectrum of the American society that exists. And I'm quite sure she did it to the best of her ability to make sure that that case was heard and heard well, so she's a justice for all.
I think when I look at the other day justices I see them as justices, yes, and they are supposed to be for all. But when I look at their backgrounds, and I look at hers, she is truly the first that, I think, is representative of the American people. And that includes all races, all genders, all status as far as immigrants, or other nationalities. Her experience as a public defender brings all of that together and really makes it rounded. And I'm very, very proud to have been around to see that occur. And there are similarities in our stories. And, hopefully, one day I'll get a chance to meet her and maybe share something with her, that would be awesome. But just as we started, the robe garners the respect. I think during her confirmation, you got a little bit of what I was talking about. She was seen as a Black woman. And they attacked her as such, and not as a judicial officer. And that was truly sad.
AK: In your PILA remarks, you mentioned that we also stand on the shoulders of those who come before, including here in some of the highest courts in the land, white men who have given access, who have paved the way for all that has come after. Could you explain what you meant when you made those remarks?
GHW: The judiciary, and the framers of the American Constitution looked nothing like me, or like you. They were all white men. First of all, they were men, and they were all white men. But I want you to think about how the judiciary has changed over time. You know, Washington state has had its first Black female in 2020, the United States has had its first Black female in 2022. But there were many firsts occurring between the framers to today. And it must have taken some white men understanding that opportunities have to be opened up and given to others. Otherwise, this never would have happened. So, that's what I mean. Not all white men are bad. You know, I hear the discussion and I'm like the way some of these discussions occur, it's like all white men are just bad people. No, you have bad people, regardless of gender, regardless, creed, race and anything like that. But there are some allies of inclusivity.
Way back, in the day of the framers coming forward to the first one who allowed a woman who allowed a Black male, to become part of this prestigious establishment called the judiciary. And it goes back even further. The legal profession, there were many firsts to get me here. And many of them were white individuals, but most importantly, white men. We cannot underestimate the power and the privilege that a white male has in this country—in most countries, actually. But not all white men are bad. Many of them actually do understand the power that they have. And they do understand what inclusivity means. And they are the ones that have moved me forward, because they were the ones that provided access. So, we must be very careful when we lump everyone based on labels again. And that's another way of using labels that I think is incorrect. Not all white men are bad.
AK: Right.
GHW: There are many allies and they come in all different forms and shapes.
AK: And we need them. And we need them.
GHW: Yeah, we do, we really do.
AK: Yeah, I'm thinking about the white men and women and children at the lunch counters during the Civil Rights Movement. And like you said, even before, you know, who took a hose and beatings.
GHW: They locked hands and they took the water hose and the dogs. And, you know, were driving at night with the Black individuals laying down in the back of the vehicles. And I mean, they understood that there was something wrong with how a group of people were being treated. And over the years, that has been the agenda of the public law interest lawyers. You take on that. It's a very courageous field to be in, and it takes a very special type of individual to want to do it. And this Ketanji Brown was one of them—and I'd like to think so was I.
AK: You mentioned during the PILA remarks that we need to continue learning and that even as a Supreme Court justice in Washington here, you don't know everything. Anybody who believes they know everything about their profession, you said, should retire. Because that, you know, just hang up your hat. Yeah, there's no use to be there if you're not continuing to learn.
Could you comment on—share some of your advice to public interest lawyers or indeed to any of the students here, in terms of continued learning, that recommendation and maintaining separate lives apart from the legal profession, and how that might make us become more effective as professionals and just individuals in society?
GHW: Well, first and foremost, if you're not well, you’re no good to the profession, you’re no good to yourself, your family or anyone. So, taking care of one's health—mental as well as physical—is extremely important. As I indicated, I have a back condition. So, as someone with a disability, I paid the price to learn that lesson. It took me four and a half years to complete my undergraduate degree, actually took me more like five, because I kept having relapses because I kept pushing myself when I should have slowed down. And it took me three and a half years to complete law school because I did the same thing. And I had to take a semester off. So, it is truly important to take care of your mental and physical well-being.
Secondly, by doing that, not only are you doing yourself a service, but you're also doing the profession a service, because we need you to be all there and all in. The other thing about it is you have to do whatever it is you want to do in the law, but you have to love it. And if you don't, then at some point in time, you will burn out when you shouldn't be. Find something that you really enjoy about the law. If you decide to do public interest law—I think it's fascinating, there's so many different ways you can help people, there's so many different areas of law you can be practicing in—you can actually write if you choose to just write on decisions, or you can be in the courtroom, which I loved initially. So, I just love trial work. But at the end of the day, I still love what I do. You know, I still love the law. I still learn something every day. And that's why I say if you get up in the morning, and you think you know it all, you need to either change professions, change something that you're doing, because you're not gaining anything from it. And believe you me, the people you're interacting with, they know it, they feel it. It comes like implicit bias. It's all in your head, but it's the impact your actions have on others that is manifested and makes it explicit. Well, if you're not all there and you're not all in the receiver of your actions will know that you're not 100%. You're not representing them fully.
Love the law, love whatever area it is that you're in, and if you don't love it, that's okay too find something else. But you shouldn't be living your life doing something you don't love. You should be loving it. And the law is an awesome profession. I'm really happy I found it because I can still teach and do the law and I wanted to be a teacher. So, I think it's awesome.
AK: Your honor. You wrote a poem titled “Today.” Would you be so kind to read it to us?
łŇ±á°Â:ĚýTODAY is a somber day
Yesterday’s Plantation is TODAY’s prison
Yesterday’s Rope is TODAY’s Chain
Yesterday’s Bomb is TODAY’s gun
Yesterday’s mansion is now gone
Yesterday’s addictions are TODAY’s afflictions
Yesterday’s correctness is TODAY’s crassness
Yesterday’s Empathy seems to be lost
But at what cost?
Yesterday the problems seemed so far away
How far does it seem TODAY?
If too close for your sensitivities
Then act TODAY to address the inequities
Because Tomorrow, does not have to look like TODAY
Tomorrow can be a new day
AK: Justice G. Helen Whitener serves on the Washington Supreme Court. She was nominated by Governor Jay Inslee on April 13, 2020 and successfully ran for election in November 2020. Winning 66% of the vote.
Justice Whitener thank you so much for sharing your perspective and wisdom on: How do I rise? How do we rise? And for the resonating poetry. Really appreciate your joining us today.
GHW: Well, thank you so much for having me and as I always end: thank you for giving me a space where my voice can be heard. Thank you.
