The Washington Post
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.
Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.
The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.
Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which Sotomayor's "difference" will be judged. Sessions was accusatory in quoting Sotomayor as saying, in a speech years ago, that "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
This is supposed to be a controversial statement? Only, I suppose, if you assume that there are judges who have no opinions, sympathies or prejudices -- or, perhaps, that the opinions, sympathies and prejudices of the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court are somehow especially problematic.
There is, after all, a context in which these confirmation hearings take place: The nation continues to take major steps toward fulfilling the promise of its noblest ideals. Barack Obama is our first African American president. Sonia Sotomayor would be only the third woman, and the third member of a minority group, to serve on the nation's highest court. Aside from these exceptions, the White House and the Supreme Court have been exclusively occupied by white men -- who, come to think of it, are also members of a minority group, though they certainly haven't seen themselves that way.
Full Editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html
Showing posts with label Republican party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican party. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The worst kind of affirmative action
The Guardian
Lola Adesioye
guardian.co.uk,
Monday September 08 2008 19:00 BST
The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate exposes Republican hypocrisy regarding affirmative action
Republicans have always been hugely critical of affirmative action policies, believing that giving preferential treatment to women and minorities leads to the promotion of underqualified people over more qualified or experienced individuals. To them, affirmative action goes against the meritocratic nature of America. This explains why, in July, John McCain voted in support of a ban led by Republican Ward Connerly that would end race- and gender-based affirmative action policies in his home state of Arizona.
Outspoken conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, along with other critics of Barack Obama, has repeatedly denounced Obama as an "affirmative action candidate", suggesting that his success is not a result of his merits but because he is African-American. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago on his radio show, Limbaugh declared: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head. ... [The Democrats] ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it."
It's interesting - and somewhat hypocritical - then, that the same could be said about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. If an affirmative action policy existed for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and Obama and Palin were the beneficiaries, their respective cases would be living examples of the best and worst aspects of affirmative action.
Sarah Palin appears to be an example of the worst kind of affirmative action, the type that Republicans typically argue against and attribute to liberal political correctness. Their promotion of this particular female candidate is more of a cynical, tokenistic gesture than evidence of any real desire to promote merit in cases where it may have gone unnoticed, or to advance the cause of underrepresented women in politics. If that was the case, there are a number of other female Republican politicians – including Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchinson - who could have been selected, and may have been better equipped for the role. It would be interesting to hear how those women feel - incorrectly used affirmative action policies often cause resentment among those feel that that they have been overlooked in favour of someone else who is clearly less able but seems to have benefited from special treatment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/uselections2008.sarahpalin2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ]
Lola Adesioye
guardian.co.uk,
Monday September 08 2008 19:00 BST
The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate exposes Republican hypocrisy regarding affirmative action
Republicans have always been hugely critical of affirmative action policies, believing that giving preferential treatment to women and minorities leads to the promotion of underqualified people over more qualified or experienced individuals. To them, affirmative action goes against the meritocratic nature of America. This explains why, in July, John McCain voted in support of a ban led by Republican Ward Connerly that would end race- and gender-based affirmative action policies in his home state of Arizona.
Outspoken conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, along with other critics of Barack Obama, has repeatedly denounced Obama as an "affirmative action candidate", suggesting that his success is not a result of his merits but because he is African-American. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago on his radio show, Limbaugh declared: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head. ... [The Democrats] ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it."
It's interesting - and somewhat hypocritical - then, that the same could be said about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. If an affirmative action policy existed for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and Obama and Palin were the beneficiaries, their respective cases would be living examples of the best and worst aspects of affirmative action.
Sarah Palin appears to be an example of the worst kind of affirmative action, the type that Republicans typically argue against and attribute to liberal political correctness. Their promotion of this particular female candidate is more of a cynical, tokenistic gesture than evidence of any real desire to promote merit in cases where it may have gone unnoticed, or to advance the cause of underrepresented women in politics. If that was the case, there are a number of other female Republican politicians – including Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchinson - who could have been selected, and may have been better equipped for the role. It would be interesting to hear how those women feel - incorrectly used affirmative action policies often cause resentment among those feel that that they have been overlooked in favour of someone else who is clearly less able but seems to have benefited from special treatment. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/uselections2008.sarahpalin2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ]
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sarah Palin and the Republicans' Favorite Sport: Extreme Affirmative Action!
Huffington Post
September 3, 2008
By Michael Melcher
Usually, Republicans hate affirmative action. A core Republican message is that they are the sole protectors of embattled white men against the forces of entitled minorities and aggressive women unfairly going after their turf. This message is picked up and amplified by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and the like.
Republicans hate affirmative action. Until they think it will work for them. Then they just love it, in a big way. Look at Sarah Palin.
Affirmative action means making special efforts to increase the representation of targeted groups in schools, workplaces and government. It usually involves two practices: (1) engaging in outreach, to find potential applicants for opportunities that might not otherwise come over the transom; and (2) using a more subjective idea of merit when considering who would best fill a position.
Most people think of affirmative action as something that relates solely to ethnic minorities. In fact, decades of research has shown that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. When Hillary Clinton attended Yale Law School, it was 10% female. Now Yale Law is fifty percent female. That didn't happen by accident. Women and to a lesser extent minorities have made advances into the work world over the past four decades because nearly all academic institutions, all large companies in America and the entire military have made it a priority to increase their their inclusion of people who were previously underrepresented.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin. John McCain's choice is a big-time affirmative-action choice! Palin has done some interesting things but she is certainly not the most qualified Republican to be vice-president.
Sarah Palin is not the most conventionally qualified. But she offers other attributes that are important to McCain: she's a right-winger who will appeal to the base; she presents the "gal/guy you want to have beers with" mystique that is so weirdly important to Republicans; she's a big gun nut; and she has a reputation as a reformer (of sorts), which matches McCain's desire to repurpose the Republican Party away from the crony capitalism of the Bush years and back into the good governance folks we knew sixty years ago. (You may recall that it was Eisenhower, a Republican who warned of the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex. Those were the good old days.)
Oh, did I mention that Sarah Palin is also a woman? The value of this is not that she's going to pick off any of Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters -- that seems very unlikely to me -- but rather than she makes John McCain seem -- to his party -- cool. And mavericky. And young. And dare I say it? - interested in diversity. Keep in mind that these messages are primarily for the Republican base, not for the average Huffington Post reader. The primary value that Sarah Palin brings to the Republican effort is that she makes them interesting. She has a good narrative. And in that respect, she's far more qualified to meet McCain's needs than Mitt Romney and crew.
One reason affirmative action works is that once people see black, or Latino, or Asian, or female, or handicapped people in positions of authority, they start noticing the ways they are succeeding. So as Sarah Palin takes on a more national presence, more of America will start seeing her as vice-presidential material simply because that's how she will be introduced. Because the Republicans want to win, they will start attributing positive qualities to her, which in turn will increase her confidence and capabilities.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher/sarah-palin-and-the-repub_b_123747.html ]
September 3, 2008
By Michael Melcher
Usually, Republicans hate affirmative action. A core Republican message is that they are the sole protectors of embattled white men against the forces of entitled minorities and aggressive women unfairly going after their turf. This message is picked up and amplified by Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and the like.
Republicans hate affirmative action. Until they think it will work for them. Then they just love it, in a big way. Look at Sarah Palin.
Affirmative action means making special efforts to increase the representation of targeted groups in schools, workplaces and government. It usually involves two practices: (1) engaging in outreach, to find potential applicants for opportunities that might not otherwise come over the transom; and (2) using a more subjective idea of merit when considering who would best fill a position.
Most people think of affirmative action as something that relates solely to ethnic minorities. In fact, decades of research has shown that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. When Hillary Clinton attended Yale Law School, it was 10% female. Now Yale Law is fifty percent female. That didn't happen by accident. Women and to a lesser extent minorities have made advances into the work world over the past four decades because nearly all academic institutions, all large companies in America and the entire military have made it a priority to increase their their inclusion of people who were previously underrepresented.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin. John McCain's choice is a big-time affirmative-action choice! Palin has done some interesting things but she is certainly not the most qualified Republican to be vice-president.
Sarah Palin is not the most conventionally qualified. But she offers other attributes that are important to McCain: she's a right-winger who will appeal to the base; she presents the "gal/guy you want to have beers with" mystique that is so weirdly important to Republicans; she's a big gun nut; and she has a reputation as a reformer (of sorts), which matches McCain's desire to repurpose the Republican Party away from the crony capitalism of the Bush years and back into the good governance folks we knew sixty years ago. (You may recall that it was Eisenhower, a Republican who warned of the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex. Those were the good old days.)
Oh, did I mention that Sarah Palin is also a woman? The value of this is not that she's going to pick off any of Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters -- that seems very unlikely to me -- but rather than she makes John McCain seem -- to his party -- cool. And mavericky. And young. And dare I say it? - interested in diversity. Keep in mind that these messages are primarily for the Republican base, not for the average Huffington Post reader. The primary value that Sarah Palin brings to the Republican effort is that she makes them interesting. She has a good narrative. And in that respect, she's far more qualified to meet McCain's needs than Mitt Romney and crew.
One reason affirmative action works is that once people see black, or Latino, or Asian, or female, or handicapped people in positions of authority, they start noticing the ways they are succeeding. So as Sarah Palin takes on a more national presence, more of America will start seeing her as vice-presidential material simply because that's how she will be introduced. Because the Republicans want to win, they will start attributing positive qualities to her, which in turn will increase her confidence and capabilities.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-melcher/sarah-palin-and-the-repub_b_123747.html ]
RNC Panel Addresses Diversity on Final Day of Convention
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Gregory A. Patterson
Sep 5, 2008, 22:48
The dismantling of racial quotas or even goals in higher education, begun by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bakke decision 27 years ago, may be completed by the winner of this year’s presidential contest.
John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama largely agree that whatever preferences colleges and universities give to prospective students should be based more on socioeconomic factors, such as income and family situation.
Those were just two conclusions from a seminar on diversity held Thursday in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The diversity panel of political operatives and pundits included former White House advisor Karl Rove, political commentator Armstrong Williams and journalist Tara Wall.
“Obama is against racial quotas, and he is pretty much on the same page with John McCain,” said Wall. The buzzword nowadays on that score is “affirmative access,” she said.
But don’t expect to see minority enrollment levels falling further because panelists said they expect states to continue to press for nonracial measures that promote diversity, along the lines of laws in Texas and Florida that give compulsory admission to students based on class rank.
“We’re a merit-based party in terms of opportunity,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican Party and now a Florida political operative. But the most important obstacles to higher education degrees for Hispanic and African-American youths are high school and college drop-out rates, Cardenas said. “We really need to address that.”
Nonetheless, two other related but seemingly conflicting points met broad agreement among panelists: Affirmative action and race are taking a back seat in this year’s campaign, but Republicans must find ways to garner more votes of women and people of color or they face losing many more elections than they have in recent years.
The Republican Party simply cannot concede one quarter of the population to the Democrats, panelists said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11649.shtml ]
by Gregory A. Patterson
Sep 5, 2008, 22:48
The dismantling of racial quotas or even goals in higher education, begun by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bakke decision 27 years ago, may be completed by the winner of this year’s presidential contest.
John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama largely agree that whatever preferences colleges and universities give to prospective students should be based more on socioeconomic factors, such as income and family situation.
Those were just two conclusions from a seminar on diversity held Thursday in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The diversity panel of political operatives and pundits included former White House advisor Karl Rove, political commentator Armstrong Williams and journalist Tara Wall.
“Obama is against racial quotas, and he is pretty much on the same page with John McCain,” said Wall. The buzzword nowadays on that score is “affirmative access,” she said.
But don’t expect to see minority enrollment levels falling further because panelists said they expect states to continue to press for nonracial measures that promote diversity, along the lines of laws in Texas and Florida that give compulsory admission to students based on class rank.
“We’re a merit-based party in terms of opportunity,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican Party and now a Florida political operative. But the most important obstacles to higher education degrees for Hispanic and African-American youths are high school and college drop-out rates, Cardenas said. “We really need to address that.”
Nonetheless, two other related but seemingly conflicting points met broad agreement among panelists: Affirmative action and race are taking a back seat in this year’s campaign, but Republicans must find ways to garner more votes of women and people of color or they face losing many more elections than they have in recent years.
The Republican Party simply cannot concede one quarter of the population to the Democrats, panelists said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11649.shtml ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)