Roger Clegg points to the very revealing responses from McCain and Obama to a questionnaire from the NAACP.
McCain was refreshingly straightforward, direct, and hard-hitting. Noting that “[t]he affirmative action remedies designed forty years ago should be re-examined,” he identified himself completely not only with the philosophy of “without regard” colorblind equality but also with the actual language of the pending anti-preference state initiatives:
I believe that government should “not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, and individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
“Obama’s answer,” as Clegg drily noted, was, “as usual, anything but categorical.” Actually, as usual, Clegg was too kind. Obama’s answer was actually what one scold has variously characterized in other contexts as “waffling obfuscation, muddled, lacking any commitment to his own announced vision.” He said, in part:
Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without having an adverse impact on the opportunities for whites. Given the dearth of black and Latino Ph.D. candidates in mathematics and the sciences, for example, a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields won’t keep white students out of such programs, but can broaden the pool of talent that need to prosper in the new economy. To suggest that our racial attitudes play no part in the socio-economic disparities that we often observe turns a blind eye to both our history and our experience — and relieves us of the responsibility to make things right.
If this tripe sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve heard virtually these same words before, quoted here. And after quoting them, I posed a series a questions about what he meant, questions that are still unanswered and hence still relevant. Two of them:
• How can affirmative action programs that treat race in a preferential manner be “properly structured” so that they give additional opportunities to blacks without “without diminishing opportunities for white [or Asian] students”?
• How would “a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields … broaden the pool of talent that we need to prosper in the new economy” more than a scholarship program that was not racially restrictive? If such a program were racially restrictive, why would it not “keep white [and Asian] students out of such programs” who could not attend without a scholarship?
Obama still hasn’t explained how it is possible to discriminate in favor of blacks and Hispanics without discriminating against whites, but in addition he appears oblivious to the fact that the main victims of the racial preference policies he supports are not whites but Asians. His position might also be more credible if he could identify any “opportunities” that would be “closed to qualified minorities” in the absence of race preferences for them.
It is of course true that “qualified” applicants of all races are quite often rejected … in favor of applicants who are deemed more qualified. Since Obama obviously believes that less qualified black and Hispanic applicants should be preferred over more qualified Asian, white, Arab, Indian, Pakistani, etc., applicants, he should have the courage to say so.
But that is about as likely to happen as some journalist from the mainstream media pressing him to explain exactly which race preferences he supports and to identify some, if there are any, he opposes.
ADDENDUM
I said in the post immediately below that McCain should “take the initiative” on race preferences —
No, make that the initiatives, as in the initiatives that will be on the ballots of Colorado, Nebraska, and Arizona in November that would prohibit those states from awarding preferential treatment based on race.
Now he has done so!
If Obama favors racial and gender preferences when hiring faculty, then he should love the “Job Requirement” written for a faculty tenure-track job announcement recently posted by the Rochester Institute of Technology (R.I.T.).
Here is the offensive text:
“Job Requirements
The Ph.D. is preferred, but ABD’s will be considered. Women and minorities who would enrich the diversity of the campus community are especially encouraged to apply. applicants should be able to teach a range of courses, including the intro-level American Pollitics, and other areas of competence of the candidate.”
Notice the misspelling of the word “politics”.
And here is a link to the posting on their web site:
https://myinfo.rit.edu/OA_HTML/OA.jsp?page=/oracle/apps/irc/candidateSelfService/webui/VisVacDispPG&OAHP=IRC_EXT_SITE_VISITOR_APPL&OASF=IRC_VIS_VAC_DISPLAY&akRegionApplicationId=821&transactionid=850618032&retainAM=N&addBreadCrumb=RP&p_svid=24534&p_spid=127087&oapc=5&oas=ran1lXNkBKR2FOy78YJISw..
Game over.
Well…I guess these answers didn’t seem relevant enough for McCain to mention at the NAACP Conference on July 16th, huh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16text-mccain.html
I wonder what kind of reception that answer would’ve received there? Hmmm?
John writes:
>>>”It is of course true that “qualified” applicants of all races are quite often rejected … in favor of applicants who are deemed more qualified.”
And that’s based upon who’s determining qualifications, right John?
I can’t imagine anti-affirmative action types mobilizing against nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, patronage, backscratching and old boy networks because THAT kind of “discrimination” is “acceptable.”
I would also wager that it’s “acceptable” based upon the gender and ethnicity of those who most often BENEFIT from those types of discrimination.
I would include Senator John McCain in that wager.
–Cobra
Marc,
Most universities discriminate based on sex and race when hiring and making promotions.
The example you give is nothing compared to the discrimination that goes on AFTER people apply for these jobs. The search committees regularly take sex and race into account, often elevating applicants to a “short list” when they were squarely in the unqualified list. Usually the hiring committee will do this themselves, although the diversity office sometimes has to step in to do it for them.
Even if the women/blacks STILL do not get an offer for the open position, then the diversity office will open up a second position that is immediately offered to them. In return, the university then reduces (by one) the number of positions they will open up for the following year.
Imagine if whites did this to only hire whites. Why, I bet you’d get some sort of uppity women/blacks who would want a non-discrimination civil rights law written into the constitution to prevent this kind of stuff!
ACF
Cobra writes:
>>”I can’t imagine anti-affirmative action types mobilizing against nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, patronage, backscratching and old boy networks because THAT kind of “discrimination” is “acceptable.”
Cobra,
I am not a great admirer of Sen. McCain’s views on policy.
He paid close to the ultimate price in service to his country, enduring torture and disfigurement. Shame on you for suggesting that he attained his position through underhanded tactics. He earned it.
His family was successful, serving our country through generations in our armed forces. Shame on you again for suggesting that his family was devious and underhanded in performing this service.
The vicious envy that you express does not speak well of you. Service in the military is available to you. If you are so envious of Sen. McCain’s record of service… well, get busy and enlist. The opportunity to enlist and rise in rank in the armed forces has been available to you your entire life. In fact, the military would have given you a quota preference in seeking promotion.
Somehow, you keep imagining that this bitter hatred and envy of successful families that you express casts you in a heroic light. It does not. It casts you in a decidedly ugly light.
Your own words condemn you. Your continued use of a gang pseudonym self-describes your mentality. You are the one who “doesn’t get it?” How dense can you get?
Marc Bernstein writes:
>>>”No, those are unacceptable, too, and should be exposed and held up to ridicule whenever possible.”
I haven’t heard you talk about them here at Discriminations. I don’t see any rallies or marches.
I don’t see any teary-eyed blond cheerleaders spearheading ballot initiatives.
Where’s the passion and vitriol, Marc?
Marc writes:
>>>”Just how does this ‘old boy’ network of nepotism, cronyism, etc. help an unconnected working-class so-called “white” male anyway?? They’re not part of that club, either!”
How are YOU personally helping an “unconnected working-class so-called “white” male?
Do you vote for, and support causes or candidates that support workers rights, mininum wages increases, and unionization?
Do you vote against, and fight trade policies that downsize American workers and ship labor overseas?
Do you express outrage at the billions in set asides, subsidies and corporate welfare for Wall Street robber barons while the common man is hard pressed to get basic health care benefits?
Who do you stand with when you walk in the ballot box, Marc? Corporate gods or the “working class white males” you claim to champion on this blog?
Stephen writes:
>>>”He paid close to the ultimate price in service to his country, enduring torture and disfigurement. Shame on you for suggesting that he attained his position through underhanded tactics. He earned it.”
You didn’t catch me questioning his torture and disfigurement. You caught me telling the truth about his PRIVILEGED background.
Senator John McCain WAS “devious” and “underhanded” during THIS episode:
>>>”Before John McCain’s tour of duty in Vietnam, he married Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia. On his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam in 1967, McCain was shot down and captured.
While he was imprisoned, Carol was in an auto wreck (1969), thrown through her car’s windshield and left seriously injured. Despite her injures, she refused to allow her POW husband to be notified about her condition, fearing that such news would not be good for him while he was being held prisoner.
When McCain returned to the United States in 1973 after more than five years as a prisoner of war, he found his wife was a different person. The accident “left her 4 inches shorter and on crutches, and she had gained a good deal of weight…”
…While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 — just a month after dumping Carol and securing a divorce. The newlyweds honeymooned in Hawaii.
McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona where her father helped catapult McCain into politics”
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm
And the “liberal media” is piling on John Edwards–a guy who isn’t running for anything save a mirror?
–Cobra