The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Hook a brother (or sister) up

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

blacksmythe — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:00:49 -0000

bread & roses, read my comment again if you could.

"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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

bread & roses — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:13:54 -0000

Lester says:

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?

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

colby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:14:00 -0000

GAPeach7- so say we all.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

GAPeach7 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:55:16 -0000

Reward: 1.Something given or received in recompense for worthy behavior or in retribution for evil acts. 2.Money offered or given for a special service, such as return of a lost article. 3.A satisfying return or result; profit.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

fanita — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:49:17 -0000

@rikyrah

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

colby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:42:56 -0000

"There has to be some reward for backing folks. Why is this hard to understand?"

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

rikyrah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:37:30 -0000

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.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:34:56 -0000

Rik,

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

fanita — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:30:45 -0000

@rikyrah

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Deborah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:22:45 -0000

Isn't "you got to dance with them what brung you" exactly what's supposed to have hindered the first Clinton administration? And what Obama's small donors, limit on big money and lobbying, etc was supposed to avoid?

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

rikyrah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:10:36 -0000

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.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Stacy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:54:28 -0000

"There has to be some reward for backing folks. Why is this hard to understand?"

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Persia — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:52:40 -0000

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?

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)?

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

fanita — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:48:28 -0000

@rikyrah

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

rikyrah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:35:43 -0000

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

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

GAPeach7 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:20:48 -0000

See? This is what happen when there's no NEWS to report on. Asinine commentary and I like Roland Martin. Or, when the actual news is not as interesting as kicking up dust on a non-issue. I'm with sgw on this one.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

colby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:17:07 -0000

"I don't think rewarding your constituents disproportionately is good governing policy in Democracy. "

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

colby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:15:18 -0000

Citizen E, you're right, we do have to give Bill Clinton some dap, especially when you consider how many of Obama's people got their start in the Clinton admin.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Stacy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:14:27 -0000

"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.?

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Joel — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:12:18 -0000

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.

That was the thinking that got fundamentalist nuts ranking positions in the Bush White House. I don't think rewarding your constituents disproportionately is good governing policy in Democracy.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

rikyrah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:06:42 -0000

I have no patience for folks who say that they can't find qualified Blacks in WASHINGTON, DC. Within an hour of Washington, you can find a qualified Black in ANY AREA YOU WANT. It's not Idaho. Washington, DC has the distinction of having had a sizeable Black professional class for GENERATIONS- predating the Civil Rights Movement.

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

colby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:04:25 -0000

I think we'll also have to see the changes Obama makes to his cabinet down the road. I mean, all cabinets shift, but I have a feeling Obama's is going to change more than most. For example, he's already indicated that he wants Richardson back if that investigation clears up, and I've got a feeling Gaes and Clinton are specifically the "Out of Iraq" cabinet- once the withdrawal is done (or stable), they will be, too. And then, of course, I HOPE that Geithner and Summers are only on a limited engagement...

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

Joel — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:50:21 -0000

On the surface of things, the non-white racial breakdown is in line with the figures from the last US census:

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.

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

blacksmythe — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:41:41 -0000

I appreciate the comments. And I believe that Coates is right, that this administration is more diverse than any other.

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?

Re: Hook a brother (or sister) up

CitizenE — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:35:12 -0000

It's not that diversity is a faux issue in socalled postracial America, but it does seem to be that Clinton should be given his props on this for breaking through, and one can say whatever one wants about Bush, unlike a lot of his Republican cohorts, he could have working relationships with people of diverse backgrounds, albeit often as incompetent as he was. The real issue is will Obama's policies be inclusive, will they enrich the diverse populations that elected him into office. That's where the verdict will lie in upcoming years.