Perception. We all know the adage that truth is in the eye of the beholder. This week’s hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court reminded me that through different sets of eyes, the same situation can appear drastically dissimilar. As I sat in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building on day three of the hearings, the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee shined a spotlight on many of the most critical issues in our social and political life, and the fundamental disagreements about them. There are dozens of examples from this week’s hearings, but here are some that stood out on Wednesday.

Throughout the hearings, there was a lot of talk about “judicial activism.” Last year, during Justice Sotomayor’s hearings, Sen. Franken (D-MN) said this on the subject: “As I see it, there is kind of an impoverishment of our political discourse when it comes to the judiciary … Judicial activism has become a code word for judges you don’t agree with.” During General Kagan’s hearings, several senators made similar points. On Wednesday, Sen. Graham (R-SC) perceptively explained, “it seems to be an activist judge is somebody that rules the way we don’t like.”

Sens. Graham and Franken agree. The term “activist judge” has become a negative buzzword, largely due to the opposing and popular conception that judges should be like umpires (an analogy made famous during Chief Justice Roberts’ hearings), ‘calling balls and strikes,’ strictly adhering to precedent and the constitution. Throughout her testimony, General Kagan respectfully debunked both the activist and umpire models and reminded us more than once that “judging requires judgment.” In essence, she reminded us of what Justice Sotomayor and President Obama have said – that Justices bring their life experiences to the bench in part shaping their perceptions and subsequent decisions.

As a witness to the hearings, my perceptions are also shaped by my experiences, which is why I was somewhat shocked by a line of questioning that Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) chose to pursue on the issue of General Kagan’s enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at Harvard. After a lengthy and worn exchange about whether the military was able to recruit without impediment from the Harvard Law School talent pool, Sen. Cornyn asked General Kagan what other purpose enforcing the Harvard anti-discrimination policy could have had other than to stigmatize the military. I was not the only one shocked by his follow up, “In effect, you provided a separate but equal means of providing access to students on the campus.” His perception of that situation refused to take into account the unjust “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — the true vehicle for creating second-class citizenship  —  the real injustice that should have been addressed in this broader conversation about then-Dean Kagan’s policy dilemma. To Sen. Cornyn it was the military that was victimized, whereas Elena Kagan acted because she perceived that LGBT students were victims of the military’s discriminatory policy. These moments are just a small sampling of the many on Wednesday that remind us that perception matters.

The privilege of bearing live witness to such a historically significant national moment comes with a responsibility to share my own perception – whether on NCJW’s Twitter feed or here on this blog. While these hearings point out the deep cultural and philosophical rifts that exist in our nation, they are ultimately about confirming a nominee to a lifetime seat on the highest court. Elena Kagan showed the nation that she is brilliant, poised, and witty. But more importantly, she demonstrated that she will adhere to the rule of law and judge with a passion for the law and Constitution, as well as compassion for the individuals whose lives will be impacted by her rulings.