Kay Steiger:But while we hold the media accountable for the need to diversify their ranks, it's quite telling to see the lack of diversity in the White House's press office.
I got an e-mail Tuesday listing all of the various press folks and contact information, and hardly any African-Americans or Hispanics were listed. Granted, the deputy press secretary is African-American and the director of broadcast media is Hispanic. That's not sufficient.
Unfortunately, this shouldn't come as a shock, because the campaign press staff of then-Sen. Barack Obama was just as weak on diversity.
Still, if you were expecting Obama to be a shining beacon of diversity in the upper tiers of the government's elite, you are bound to be disappointed. This goes back to the age old "chicken and egg" diversity problem. The most common response to complaints about lack of diversity is that there just aren't women and minorities that would be considered qualified for such leadership positions. But how are we supposed to increase diversity if we never give anyone but an old, white man the opportunity to lead something?
I think it's good policy--and good politics--for the White House to hold diversity as a goal. It sends a message of inclusiveness to the country at large, and really to the world. But I'm mixed on this criticism. Leaving aside the fact, that Obama's picks actually have been more diverse then his predecessors, my trouble is that when I think about race and even gender, I mostly think about people who won't ever have chance to serve in a presidential cabinet. What's important to me is that an Obama's administration empower these folks to compete in ways that they haven't been empowered in decades.Thirty-eight of the 56 appointees (68 percent) are men. (But white men, representing 46 percent of all picks, fall short of a majority. Nearly 70 percent of these appointees are white, 7 percent are of Asian or Pacific island descent, 16 percent are African American, and 7 percent are Latino.
BTW is it just me or is Condeleeza getting a pass on her role in pushing Bush's agenda? I wonder why that is...
]]>This makes a great deal of common sense.
Which is why I'm suspicious in this case.
Now I don't think Roland or anyone else that matter is saying we just want more black people. The reality is that men and women's attitudes differ in important ways, as do white and non-white attitudes. At best you want a diverse press corps, or cabinet, to get diverse attitudes. If we ever needed a new set of ideas it is NOW.
But....let's ignore all of that.
Better yet, let's say that none of these differences exist. Why exactly would "diversity for diversity's sake be whack?" How would this be worse than what we currently have?
]]>Because when you pick a person primarily because of their gender or skin color there is that chance that you are also get a person that isn't as qualified as someone else that isn't in their same demographic. Right now after 8 years of bullshit I want people in the administration that can get the job done period. And if you go by that standard there will by definition be minorities and women who enter into the mix. By artificially assuming that we need x amount of women or x amount of minorities the implication is that either they couldn't make the grade on their own or they wouldn't be judged fairly by the people doing the picking. In this particular case I don't think either of those implications hold any water so again I am super MEH about it.
]]>This reminds me of the debates within feminism brought out by Clinton's campaign: Focus on getting women into top management and giving them benefits, and it will trickle down, or focus on the pink collar worker. (The leadership went with trickle down, one reason women find it easier to abandon the "feminist" label as something for rich white women.)
I like Persia's point about the diversity of people in appointed posts versus in elected posts.
]]>I may not understand the way Kamen parsed his figures, but it sounds like the cabinet basically mirrors the racial disposition of the nation as a whole.
Geez, give us a few more years to enjoy our majority status...
The offshoot of that post is that this is why we're seeing so many Clintonites in the Obama administration - the young staffers of 1992, 1994, etc. are the people you can promote now in 2009.
Conversely, I would hope that Obama actually grooms in a bunch of young staffers who can be part of future Dem administrations.
(If I were a moderate Republican, I'd be scared to death of who I could get to work for me in - say - 2016 or 2020. Dubya's minions? Yeah, that'll work out for them just fine).
]]>That sounds a mess. Sorry if I'm jumbled. I'm still caffeinating.
]]>The problem -- as TR pointed out long ago -- is that running for elective position involves getting down in the muck... and doing the hard work of building a political constituency. It's not a particularly attractive proposition for the well-educated (in general), or for the 'talented tenth' (in particular) -- for whom it is often much easier to seek appointive positions.
It is to Obama's credit (and Fenty's and Booker's) that they took the road less traveled. Indeed, we'll likely see their impact in blazing this path for many other young, smart, and ambitious activists.
For what it's worth, one of the things I found most impressive about the young people who worked on the Obama campaign was their willingness to leave their comfort zone. I recall being particularly impressed by the men and women from Queens, Harlem, and Brooklyn who began to get in the habit of trooping up to New Hampshire to knock on doors for the early primary battles.
No question, New Hampshire is a place where they do look at you a little bit funny as you toil your way up the long, unplowed, snowy driveway... But, most of the time, the doors open. And some sensible muck-boots (and, for that matter snow tires and GPS) are a big help.
]]>TR: That mostly seems to be the case. Although Latinos are somewhat significantly underrepresented in those figures as are women albeit to a lesser extent. Not saying that means anything.
]]>(If I were a moderate Republican, I'd be scared to death of who I could get to work for me in - say - 2016 or 2020. Dubya's minions? Yeah, that'll work out for them just fine).
Just how much can Bobby Jindal do all alone? This is where Republicans discover they aren't opposed to cloning after all...
As has been noted (but perhaps needs repeating), this is pretty close to the racial composition of the U.S. as a whole. In fact, if one looks at the numbers it could be argued that African Americans are over-represented in this group of 70 appointees. Is the population of the U.S. 16 percent African American? It's a bit less than that, I think.
]]>How are blacks overrepresented? I count only 3. Roland Martin refers to "deputy press secretary is African-American," in his article. Is he referring to the Bill Burton guy? If so, I would hardly call him African-American.
I think the point is that there needs to be more blacks in the White House and other minorities so that they can benefit post-WH just like everyone else.
]]>"Right, well, how about if in addition to director of broadcast media Dag Vega, referenced above, one were to add the other African Americans? Or the other Hispanics -- such as deputy director of message events Joelle Terry, director of Hispanic media Luis Miranda, deputy director of research Margaret Olmos, or researcher David Gomez?
And what about Asian-Americans? Do they not count? There's special assistant to the press secretary Marissa Hopkins, press assistant Priya Singh, deputy director of communications Jason Djang, and director of specialty media Shin Inouye?
I realize I'm Caucasian, and thus it's sensitive for me to even address this, but let's just say this meme has been noticed by those on the White House press and communications staff who aren't white, and who think this charge is not just inaccurate, it's insulting."
]]>Thanks for that but are any of those people actually shaping policy or the agenda? That is what concerns me in terms of diversity in the White House.
]]>Please don't go here. No disrespect, but it will get you deleted.
On your other point you count three in the cabinet--there are actually. 16 percent of Obama's apointees have been black. That's an overrepresentation when measured against the number of blacks in the country. Man, this is fucking stupid.
The top cop in the country is a black guy. The UN Ambassador is a black woman. The head of the EPA is a black woman. The trade rep is a black man. This doesn't even include the White House staff. There are something like 23 cabinet-level positions. Four of them have gone to black people. What do we really want to happen here? Total domination? We're a minority in this country. Come on.
]]>I disagree with you about the number of blacks being in Obama's administration as not being important--it is. We are often left behind and Obama himself has spoken about his ties to the black community and I would like to think that with him at the helm, many of our issues that go ignored will now have more than one voice--though of course I understand that he is everyone's President.
That is all that I'm saying.
]]>If you re-read, I never said it wasn't important to have blacks in his administration. So we're in agreement. Now let's look at the facts. We're better represented than we've been in any other administration. Moreover, we are better represented in the Obama administration than we are in the country as a whole. Moreover, we are better represented in the Obama cabinet (17 percent?) than we are in the country as a whole. What else is there. Seriously, what else?
I don't see much evidence of that.
Imagine what our media would look like, focus on, and how credible it would be if, say, Muslim-Americans were as over-represented as white males are.
]]>Ridiculous.
]]>It's not just you, but it isn't me. I think that after the way Powell obviously was deceived and manipulated and used by that adminstration, Rice's failures were likely to be excused as well. State in generally sucked hind tit on foreign policy in that adminstration and it isn't fair to blame any SecState for very much that happened or didn't happen.
"Imagine if u actually would have a muslim or *gasp*...a non-believer appointed to the cabinet...glenn beck's head would explode..."
It would be worth it just for that.
]]>I suggest though that the standard "diversity for diversity's sake is wack" is weak as all hell. Theoretically it's based on the notion that the standard (remember it's diversity compared to WHAT) is actually meritorious. X group dominates because they are SUPPOSED to.
And practically I can't for the life of me think of an instance in which a non-white all of a sudden achieved power and then started appointed weak ass non-white candidates willy-nilly.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond here, because for the first time in a while it's made me think about something I took for granted. I was one of those who believed that having Rice and Powell was the equivalent of "diversity for diversity's sake" and that I'd much rather have someone else fill those spots given how the two of them actually performed.
Now? I believe otherwise. I think Rice was horrible...but am glad she had the OPPORTUNITY to be horrible. Coates and others have argued that we'll know we're really getting somewhere when non-whites have the opportunity to be horrible on the gig without getting canned. Thanks to Rice, perhaps we're a bit closer?
]]>
12% black (Obama +4)
9% hispanic (Obama -2)
4% asian (Obama +3)
Obviously the female disparity is real. However, that's just taking raw census data. Rigorous analysis requires a look at the pool of available women and minority candidates.
]]>In fact, if one looks at the numbers it could be argued that African Americans are over-represented in this group of 70 appointees. Is the population of the U.S. 16 percent African American? It's a bit less than that, I think.
But, what percentage of Obama's votes came from Black folk. No community supported him stronger than Black folk, so yeah, they should be rewarded for it.
]]>I'd say its a good thing that George W. Bush wasn't saying the opposite thing when he won 8 years ago. I think you're way wrong on that one, Rikyrah.
Also, who said they couldn't find qualified blacks in Washington D.C.?
]]>As to the "diversity for diversty's sake", even SCOTUS has said that diversity is a laudable goal, in and of itself. Just putting that out there.
]]>It's not even good REWARDING policy. Even if you FILL your cabinet, you're still only going to get a teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy fraction of a fraction of your constituency jobs. Most of 'em are NEVER going to feel the effects.
]]>This is the most diverse administration in the history of the United States and not just because el capitan is black. He's the President, not a Civil Rights leader. Everyone needs to relax or go see Rush for a Zanax.
And i'm not quite sure yet but Rikyrah's comment:
"But, what percentage of Obama's votes came from Black folk. No community supported him stronger than Black folk, so yeah, they should be rewarded for it."
Something about that whole "rewarding" thing is not sitting well.
]]>Something about that whole "rewarding" thing is not sitting well
I don't know why it doesn't sit well. Folks that bring you to the dance should get slots on the dance card. Those that didn't - too bad. There has to be some reward for backing folks. Why is this hard to understand?
Cause everytime I hear the standard, ' We just want the best person for the job' line, it always seems as if the door is shut on Black folks. It's one of those standard lines that makes my eyebrow arch in suspicion. Especially when it comes to Washington. As I said before - this is the town where a solid Black professional class predates the Civil Rights Movement.
Black folks get rewarded by Obama implementing policies that move our community in a better direction such as: better drug sentencing policies, increasing funding and ensuring better education in urban areas, producing better jobs in urban areas and focus on AIDS prevention policies but not limited to these. This way our whole community moves forward not 30 people in an administration. Black people, in fact all people, need to keep Obama accountable for policies not all the other superficial stuff.
I'm all for diversity in Obama'a cabinet which I think he has achieved. I just think it's better served at the lower level where minorities can be groomed for future elected and appointed position. There are over 16000 political appointments. Why are we so concerned about the top tier? We want more people in the middle and lower so that they can rise for the second term and the future.
]]>Because it sounds a lot like Tammany Hall? Because while black people were Obama's biggest supporters, they were hardly his only supporters (look at the male vs. female numbers, for example)?
]]>Because then the opposite also has to fair when the next Republican wins. Would you have been okay with George W. Bush shutting minorities out of his cabinet because they didn't "bring him to the dance?" Of course not.
When did I say anything about excluding the lower level? I agree with you. Should be on all levels. I don't see where we disagree, except for that maybe I want it on ALL levels, and don't see why it shouldn't happen on ALL levels.
]]>And I sure don't approve of staffing everything with religious conservatives just because they elected GWB.
Word to the people saying that racial diversity matters a lot at the lower levels--this is the pool Obama's successor will draw on in 8 years.
To me "diversity for diversity's sake" could mean "all other things being considered, we also want a diverse body staffing X" or it could mean "the first thing I look at in a senior staffer at the state department is their hockey team affiliation; it's also the last thing." A lot of people favor the former; when the only thing someone notices about Mrs. Obama's inaugural gown is the race of the designer, that's when you get the latter reading.
]]>My comment to you was about how black folks get rewarded. I just don't think cabinet positions (jobs)are how black people should get rewarded but through implemented policies. And you probably agree with that, but the way you worded the "rewarding statement" that is not apparent at first glance. Also, I never said that there shouldn't be diversity at the top tier. Their is and that's good. I just think people focus on it too much. Building a future political base is more important. There has to be black politicians at all levels after Obama. One of the down falls of the Civil Rights Movement was the vacuum of leadership after King was killed.
]]>I'm not sure what set you off here. If you're arguing that blacks should be represented in the cabinet and the White House staff. You got that. In fact, we're overrepresented. What's the beef? I haven't read anyone saying that Obama shouldn't have a diverse staff. Or that there aren't enough qualified black folks to fill the jobs. I'm just not sure what the dispute is over.
]]>again, no disagreement. I just don't see it as an either/or proposition. Why can't we have people in place AND implemented policies? Who said we had to choose between them? I certainly don't believe we have to choose.
]]>It's not; what's hard to understand is what the reward IS. Getting the President you want is a reward. Getting policies that help you and your community is a reward. Getting a couple thousand jobs for a constituency of tens of millions is not. And getting a President who doesn't have access to a wide array of viewpoints and experiences is probably more like a punishment.
]]>I don't think we have to choose either. I just think we have a communication problem. Right now, I think Obama is meeting both. Roland and others disagree.
]]>Forgive me, I'm not interested in a semantics debate. We can all agree that diversity at ALL levels is important, for all the reasons noted above and more. President Obama's administration is incredibly diverse. I understand the innate suspicision of "best person for the job" i.e. not a black person. Wonderfully, the President feels that he has found the best people for his cabinet and White House, some black, some latino, some asian, some women. I'm sure some of those people working at the tier 4 and tier 3 levels are even from the D.C. area Rikyrah. Will Obama's appointees be competent and excel in the position (at all levels)? We don't know yet. But isn't it lovely that they were able to attend the dance? Let's wait and see their moves. Not piss on the host for, allegedly, not inviting more - and I'm referring to the original post by Coates, not your specific comments.
Also, someone has got to be the bigger person. As Persia and Stacy pointed out - God help us all if we continue to engage in the tit-for-tat political nonsense, i.e. you didn't invite my friends to the dance, well I'm taking my toys and going home.
]]>But....let's ignore all of that.
Better yet, let's say that none of these differences exist. Why exactly would "diversity for diversity's sake be whack?" How would this be worse than what we currently have?
It would be worse because it would be arbitrary, and because it might not result in the best person for the job being placed. I'm not a white house HR person, but it's clear to me as a member of the public that for some positions there are not really enough candidates qualified in all the right ways- for example it seems that Obama was unable to find a Treasury Secretary both qualified and free of tax embarrassments. When you're filling 10,000 jobs from a field of millions of applicants, you can get close to racial and gender target numbers, but when you're talking 70 incredibly specific, high-level, difficult jobs- then I think diversity for diversity's sake could be harmful.
The other thing is that racial and gender diversity is a PROXY for diversity of viewpoints and approaches. People who have achieved high positions in government in Washington D.C. are already streamlined in their points of view. The analogy that comes to mind is the super-selective, elite liberal arts college I went to. We had quite low numbers of minorities. But among those minorities there were more folks who had gone to elite private schools their whole lives than you could shake a stick at. Culturally, they were far more mainstream than me. All I'm saying is that though sociologically race and gender produce different points of view, using race and gender once it gets down to individuals is silly: you can just get their point of view without having to make an assumption.
]]>"It would be worse because it would be arbitrary...."
I tackled this above. Arbitrary compared to what?
"...for some positions there are not really enough candidates qualified in all the right ways...."
Do you see the principle this position is founded on? Your position here is founded on the idea that the current arrangement is the best arrangement on the dimension of merit. Which then implies that the people who GAIN from the current arrangement are actually superior. Any gain in diversity along these lines diminishes quality.
I don't believe this. Do you?
"The other thing is that racial and gender diversity is a PROXY for diversity of viewpoints and approaches."
There are people who make this argument. The best text I've read on the subject is Scott Page's recent work. Amazon it...absolutely excellent.
But I'm not making this argument. I tackled this above too. Both Rice and Powell pretty much took the same political line that Bush did when he was in office. I argue however that having them in office was preferable to having members of the traditional lineup. For psychological reasons--and here I'm not talking about blacks but whites. White men and women need to ROUTINELY see people who don't look like them, don't love like them, don't act like them, in positions of authority. They need to understand that "American" is not a synonym for "white and protestant".
There are also material reasons. Cultural and material capital needs to be spread as widely as possible in order to keep a society and a civilization from dying--or at least to stave off that moment as long as possible. Having others--even others of the exact same political viewpoint--helps make that more possible, to the extent the capital they accrue is distributed to other groups.
]]>