“There is little legal justification for the Democrats to stop Roland Burris from taking Barack Obama’s Senate seat,” writes Prof. John L. Jackson, the Chronicle of Higher Education’s designated anthropologist and “diverse” commentator. “But just because there’s nothing technically illegal about the nomination (and Burris isn’t one of the people invoked as part of that alleged “pay-to-play” scheme),” he continues,
doesn’t mean that Burris should have accepted it. In fact, I’m shocked that he did.
Who wants to be such an obvious political football for a desperately flung Hail Mary? [Emphasis in original]
It’s been far too long since I’ve commented on one of Prof. Jackson’s race columns (see here, here, here, here, and here), and I hardly know where to start on this one. How about here: if there is no “legal” justification for excluding Burris, and there is nothing “specifically illegal” about his nomination, why be “shocked” (like being shocked by pool in River City or gambling at Rick’s?) that he accepted?
Let’s assume that Blago played the “race card” for his own benieft. So what? Is what he did fundamentally different from university admissions officers and hiring committees playing their own quite clear “race cards” in admissions and hiring?
Does Prof. Jackson mean to say that applicants for college admission, college teaching or administrative positions, or jobs in industry should refuse to accept the preferential hand they’r dealt by whites playing the “race card” for their own benefit?
Prof. Jackson goes on to say that
[i]t should give us all pause, as Americans, to ponder the fact that Obama is the only African-American in the Senate right now….
…. the Senate’s spectacular lack of diversity doesn’t give Burris license to imply that any hesitation to accept Blagojevich’s appointment of an African-American might reek of racism to some voters. If so, the entire Senatorial chamber should already be giving off that aroma.
Exactly why should the absence of black senators “give us all pause, as Americans”? Does that absence and the “aroma” that wafts from the Senate chamber as a result of it mean that, “as Americans,” we must be sure that 12% of the Senators we elect are black to prove we’re not racist? Or perhaps that state lines should be jiggled (and some people resettled to and from them), in the manner of Congressional districts, so that 12% of the states have substantial enough black majorities to elect black senators?
Finally, or almost finally,
If Blagojevich is trying to “play the race card” to save his political life, Burris is dealing from the same deck. And they both should know better.
Really? What should they know that preference-receiving college and job applicants don’t know? Oh, wait. maybe this is it:
Talk about playing “the race card.” Blagojevich looks like the worst kind of cynic in this scenario: someone willing to do anything to save his political life, even if it threatens to spin his party into complete disarray.
What exactly is the difference between the “worst kind” of “race card”-playing cynics and other, every day, run of the mill “race card” players?
The difference is now clear: the “cynics” are the “race card”-players who hurt or embarrass the Democrats.
John Rosenberg writes:
>>>”Exactly why should the absence of black senators “give us all pause, as Americans”?”
Considering that America was born of a revolution–with the main complaint being “taxation without representation,” is having the appearance that African-Americans have a voice at the table too much to ask?
–Cobra