Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Do Hillary And Barack Undercut The Argument For ?Diversity??

When Democratic politicians, pundits, and the press are not battling over race and gender, over whether blacks have been ?disrespected? more than women, or vice versa, they all tend to congratulate themselves for being on the verge of ?making history,? of nominating a black or a woman to be president.

That is certainly about to happen, and at this point it appears that either of them is likely to be elected. And now here?s a novel thought, at least considering the source (me): maybe that wouldn?t be so bad from the vantage point of those of us who would like to put an end to racial preference policies.

Much has been made so far that the bi-racialism Obama literally embodies enables him, and thus us if he?s elected, to transcend race. I?ve expressed doubts about this hopeful view of Obama a number of times ? see here, here, here, here, here, and here ? but it is an appealing notion. If he wins, I hope it?s justified. But whether or not he wins, he and his campaign have clearly asserted, as I pointed out here, quoting one of his supporters, that we should ?pick the best president without regard to skin color.?

And Hillary? Well, as I?ve already noted (here and here), she quite clearly now believes that qualifications are, or should be, more important than race in selecting someone for high office. So, why not for lower ones as well? And even her future co-president, Bill, is now on record lamenting that ?he expects blacks to vote for Barack Obama and women to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.? He laments this not on principle, I?m sure, but because ?the dynamic may cause his wife to lose the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary Saturday.? But at least he laments it.

There is also evidence that not just Clinton Inc. and Obama recognize that race and gender are poor proxies for qualifications for any position. Yesterday, for example, the Houston Chronicle ran an article whose reporter interviewed black women in Houston in an effort to determine whether black women in South Carolina would ?vote their race or their gender.?

Some of the answers may have been surprising, such as: ?Women should vote for the best candidate, period.? Here was an answer that may have some unforeseen implications for the future of racial and gender preference policies: Andrea Battle, a graduate student at the University of Houston,

said she was particularly interested in the recent advice given by writer and radio personality Tavis Smiley.

?He?s encouraging people to look at the issues and not fall in love with the idea of the first black president or the first woman. ... And I agree with him. You can?t assume that just because people are the same ethnicity or the same gender, they want the same things.?

The success so far of Hillary and Obama, and the greater success to come of at least one of them, may well be popularizing the principle that you can?t assume that ?just because people are the same ethnicity or the same gender? they would necessarily provide any meaningful ?diversity? to others.

In short, even if unwittingly on their parts, the two leading Democratic candidates, by their very success, may be undermining the rationale of one of the policies that all Democrats have long supported. And once a black or a woman is nominated for president, even if he or she doesn?t win, it will be increasingly hard to argue that blacks or women can?t succeed in the United States without the handouts of preferential treatment.

Full post as published by Discriminations on January 25, 2008 (boomark / email).