RJ Matson, Roll Call

Rather than signaling the onset of a post-racial society, does Obama’s success herald the dawn of a new American ‘ethnopolitics’? Mirko Lauer of the Peruvian newspaper La Republica writes, ‘Governor Kenneth Blackwell, an Ohio politician who has won many victories said in 2006: ‘We’re at a historic moment, and in a position to win nominations and break stereotypes.’ He’s implying that it’s precisely Blackness that is beginning to win elections.’ Lauer goes on to point out, ‘the real change in U.S. politics will be an extension of ethnopolitics as long practiced by Whites to their own advantage.’

By Mirko Lauer.

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

February 28, 2008

Peru - La Republica - Original Article (Spanish)

As Barack Obama inches closer to the Democratic nomination (this morning’s betting gives him an 82 percent chance), the question of whether a Black candidate can win a United States presidential election comes into sharper focus. Hillary Clinton’s people, believe it or not, have begun to disseminate photos of Obama in ethnic garb, something between African and Muslim.

[Editor’s Note: In the photo (right), Senator Obama donned the garb of a Somali elder during a visit near the Somali border, on diplomatic mission to Kenya in 2006.]

The Blacks now constitute 11 percent of the electorate, and it’s unlikely that they’ll all vote for Obama. Among other reasons, this is because people of color are very diverse in terms of class, culture, ideology and political affiliation. There are Blacks for Hillary, and some are even with Republicans. If Obama wins the nomination, in this regard he may end up quite alone.

Strangely, in the tea leaves of the moment, it’s not the White vote that is perceived as the biggest stumbling block for Obama, but the Latino vote. Indeed, Latinos have a very competitive relationship with African-Americans, have a political agenda of their own, and a distrust for progressivism common to nearly all immigrants.

The progressive analysis posits that this election is very different in terms of race and gender. The idea is that many voters will be willing to elect a Black or a woman solely on the basis of political image or the merit of their proposals. Yet this same electorate has consistently elected conservatives of all kinds.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.

What does the emergence of a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama as serious candidates for the U.S. presidency say about progress toward equality in American society? While it is no doubt a positive sign, according to this analysis by Patrick Jarreau of France’s Le Monde, both the tactics of the Clinton campaign and the continued relative lack of women and minorities in positions of authority show that the United States still has a very long way to go.

“Confronted with the asset posed by Obama’s negritude, which is at once assumed and transcended, Ms. Clinton and her husband have tried, each in his or her own way, to send the young politician back to his ghetto … by dividing the electorate of their party, the two candidates could cause fractures that the one who is nominated cannot repair.”

By Patrick Jarreau

Translated By Kate Davis

February 3, 2008

France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)

In nine months, the Americans could elevate to the leadership of their country a White woman or a Black man, two “minorities” in the political lexicon on the other side of the Atlantic. The Democratic candidate for the White House at the end
Read the rest of this entry »

The easy response to calls for more “diversity” is to attack it conceptually. But even defenders of diversification have often struggled to precisely articulate what, precisely, their commitment means. What counts as diversity? Do we want make sure we adequately represent everyone’s favorite color? Why are certain types of diversity seemingly more important to its advocates than others?

I explore these themes and more in Two Models of Diversity. This is an academic interest of mine, and hence this piece is longer and more scholarly in tone (though I try to lighten it up with well-placed basketball analogies). But I think it’s worth a look.

Read the whole thing here.

By Clara Scherer

Translated By Fernando Uribe

January 18, 2008

Mexico - Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)
For those who wonder about the impact on America’s image of the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one need only read foreign press overage of the U.S. election. According to this op-ed article from Mexico’s Excelsior newspaper, ‘Today, two members of those ‘minorities’ aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called ‘inequality.’

The electoral competition in the United States shows the consequences of setting certain ideas in motion. How can we not exclude, discriminate or despise the other, the different, they who aren’t and don’t want to be like us? These are the minorities which put together, really are a majority. Those of different origins; women, young people and those of so-called senior-citizen age. Today, two members of those “minorities” aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called “inequality.”

The story is simple and requires few words. For humanity and in particular the USA, where there has been at least two hundred years of humiliation within an ocean of privilege, human beings have had to fight the phantoms of self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say, prejudice. That condensation of popular “wisdom” which is expressed in so many sayings, and which are repeated every day and often. That “sentimental education” which says that it’s the suit that makes the man, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and that women are just abject loose-canons, and so on.

This requires the breaking of old habits, engaging with entrenched sentiments and promoting reverse discrimination. In other words, affirmative action. How difficult it is. How important it is. How just. To rediscover everything contained in a word: Woman. Black. Native. Handicapped. Erase it. No, better yet, transform their meanings. Introduce affirmative inflections. Disrupt the scholars of language. Redefine the accuracy of syntax to avoid the suffering caused by odious inequality.

The Empire and the global economy (ie: the peace the development of all) in the hands of Obama and Hillary … This is what the women who met at Seneca Falls, New York, over a hundred years ago dreamed of . Their dream was the result of a conference in London to abolish slavery and promote the rights of Black people in the Western world [the International Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840]. It was at this same conference, in London, capital of the civilized world, that those same rights were denied to women. Who could have predicted what we are witnessing today? They dreamt the impossible and we are succeeding.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US

On April 3, 1968, the night before he died, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in a Memphis church and concluded with these words:

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

“And so I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!”

His foreboding was more than rhetoric…

Read the rest of this entry.

Should either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton secure the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, each would face an important challenge in the selection of a vice presidential running mate. The stakes would be high in either scenario.

Clinton would need to make a choice that gains something like positive acclimation from the 45 to 48% of the electorate who say they will not vote for her under any circumstances. A few percentage points-worth of voters from this category might be all Clinton needs to score a razor-thin victory in a general election.

The operative word for Clinton in selecting a running mate would be imagination. She may have to think outside the box, choosing a vice presidential candidate that will run against the widespread picture of her as cunning and savage. At the same time, Clinton, who has worked hard during her brief tenure in the United States Senate to develop a relationship with the military, will have to choose someone with strong national security credentials. After all, this is the First Lady who, according to many reports, treated military people with contempt when her husband first became president.

An obvious choice for Clinton would be retired General Wesley Clark, who has been campaigning hard for her. But the fact that Clark has been a Clinton partisan this election year may be a strike against him. He’s too obvious a choice, one that would seem like a payoff.

The problem, of course, is that, rightly or wrongly, few Democrats have the national security cache that Clinton may need in a running mate. Hence, imagination will be important. Clinton may have to reach beyond the Democratic Party, as 2004 nominee John Kerry attempted to do when he asked Republican John McCain to be his running mate. McCain will be unavailable to Clinton in 2008, as he’s likely to hold either the number 1 or 2 place on the Republican ticket. Expect Clinton then, to press Colin Powell to come out of retirement to be her vice presidential candidate.

The attraction of Powell for Clinton is obvious. Given her recent gaffe over Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and race, she will likely want a high profile African-American on her ticket. From a Democratic perspective, at least within the counsels of the White House, Powell was “right” on the war in Iraq, even though the former secretary of State argued forcefully in favor of war at the United Nations. His military credentials are unimpeachable: service in Vietnam, national security adviser to the President, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who oversaw victory in Iraq in 1991, and author of the Powell Doctrine.

But Powell might also be attracted to being on a Democratic ticket. He has always adhered to a few political positions outside of the mainstream of conservative Republican orthodoxy–he favors affirmative action in hiring and he can’t really be described as “pro-life,” for example. In addition, service as vice president, helping with the gradual withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under a Democratic president may, in some sense, feel like vindication to Powell.

Of course, age may work against Powell. He turns 71 in April. But that makes him roughly the same age as John McCain and after all, seventy is the new forty, something for which this 54-year old is exceedingly grateful. In the end, however, I don’t think that Powell would accept a place on the Democratic ticket, which will present Clinton with huge problems should she be the nominee for president.

I’ll deal with the importance of Barack Obama’s running mate deliberations in a later post.

I fully expect Obama to be the Democratic nominee. So, in a way, that post will deal with a far more critical topic.

[You may also want to check out my scintillating personal blog, Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels.]

I covered eight presidential campaigns as a reporter and editor and am now involved in yet another as a blogger, but I have never seen a global explosion of enthusiasm for a candidate like that for Barack Obama since his Iowa caucus victory. That groundswell continues to grow as polls show that he may hand Hillary Clinton a second defeat today in New Hampshire.

A blizzard of stories in the foreign press, including fawning accounts from correspondents usually known for their reserve, have a common denominator:

They draw on an abiding hatred of George Bush and his politics of division that have driven America’s world standing to an historic low. Now, this chorus of voices in the foreign press is saying, there is an opportunity for that nightmare to end because of Obama and his politics of change.

Shorter version: It’s suddenly okay to feel good about America again.

Typical is this homage in the French newspaper Liberation:

“Obama should thank Bush in his prayers. Without him, America wouldn’t be seeking a uniter - or even a redeemer. A man capable of bringing together men and women, . . . Blacks and Whites, Blue (Democrats) and Red (Republicans). A man who pardons the original sin of the slave and who holds up a mirror to America in which she is beautiful, multi-racial and pragmatic. A man who will heal the gaping wound of the Iraq War and restore America’s image in the world.”

Obama, in fact, is being elevated to sainthood far too prematurely.

Read the rest of this entry »

RJ Matson, The New York Observer

A completely non-scientific survey of the racial composition of “elite” versus “non-elite” private colleges and universities. “Elite” colleges measured were Amherst, Brown, Carleton, Chicago, Duke, Harvard, Pomona, Stanford, Swarthmore, Williams, and Yale. The “Non-elites” were Allegheny, Beloit, Bennington, Boston University, Drexel, Goucher, Seton Hall, St. Olaf, Tulsa, Villanova, and Wake Forest. All fine schools, mind you — just not the absolute highest of the high.

By and large, the data showed that elite schools were far more diverse — even excluding Asians — from their more mainstream peers. The gap was particularly noticeable in smaller schools, but it was still significant across the board.

Why the “mis-match” argument against affirmative action doesn’t hold together (and why, for the sake of my own law school applications, I’m very glad it doesn’t!).

Anti-racist signaling, or the affirmative action vote.

Why Clinton/Sebelius will never happen.

A fascinating article was published recently at the Wall Street Journal about affirmative action. As far as I am concerned, this article is an absolute must read for all those interested in this issue. The author, Gail Hariot (professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights), starts by writing:

Three years ago, UCLA law professor Richard Sander published an explosive, fact-based study of the consequences of affirmative action in American law schools in the Stanford Law Review. Most of his findings were grim, and they caused dismay among many of the champions of affirmative action–and indeed, among those who were not.

Easily the most startling conclusion of his research: Mr. Sander calculated that there are fewer black attorneys today than there would have been if law schools had practiced color-blind admissions–about 7.9% fewer by his reckoning. He identified the culprit as the practice of admitting minority students to schools for which they are inadequately prepared. In essence, they have been “matched” to the wrong school.

No one claims the findings in Mr. Sander’s study, “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools,” are the last word on the subject. Although so far his work has held up to scrutiny at least as well as that of his critics, all fair-minded scholars agree that more research is necessary before the “mismatch thesis” can be definitively accepted or rejected.

Although that sounds good enough, the reality of the situation is that “fair-minded scholars are hard to come by when the issue is affirmative action. Some of the same people who argue Mr. Sander’s data are inconclusive are now actively trying to prevent him from conducting follow-up research that might yield definitive answers. If racial preferences really are causing more harm than good, they apparently don’t want you–or anyone else–to know.”

In other words, some people have decided that affirmative action is good and effective, no matter what the data says.

More:

Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander’s study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure “risks stigmatizing African American attorneys.” At the same time, the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander.

Sadly, the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners caved under the pressure. The committee members didn’t formally explain their decision to deny Mr. Sander’s request for these data (in which no names would be disclosed), but the root cause is clear: Over the last 40 years, many distinguished citizens–university presidents, judges, philanthropists and other leaders–have built their reputations on their support for race-based admissions. Ordinary citizens have found secure jobs as part of the resulting diversity bureaucracy.

If the policy is not working, they, too, don’t want anyone to know.

Data shows that minority students - African-Americans - often perform poorly at the elite Universities. The reason for this is that, when they go to such an elite university, they are (often) attending schools “where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students.” The result is that a lot of them “perform poorly.”

The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels.

Of course, supporters of affirmative action / race-based admissions then argue that, “despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school.” The sad news for them is that “Mr. Sander’s research suggests that just the opposite may be true–that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.”

All in all, Mr. Sanders conclude that white students are more likely to attend law schools that are at their level. These law schools, the non-elite once, take “things a little more slowly” and spend “more time on matters that are covered on the bar exam.” The result: these white students are doing quite wel, while the black students who were allowed in because of affirmative programs are not learning, but struggling at elite schools.

All in all “Mr. Sander calculated that if law schools were to use color-blind admissions policies, fewer black law students would be admitted to law schools (3,182 students instead of 3,706), but since those who were admitted would be attending schools where they have a substantial likelihood of doing well, fewer would fail or drop out (403 vs. 670). In the end, more would pass the bar on their first try (1,859 vs. 1,567) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 vs. 1,981) than under the current system of race preferences. Obviously, these figures are just approximations, but they are troubling nonetheless.”

Gail Hariot makes a strong case: if not to do away with affirmative action programs, then at least to reconsider and to study its effects more. It is worrisome that quite some people / supporters of affirmative action are not even open to the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, affirmative action is not the easy solution they hoped. Perhaps, just perhaps, affirmative action is counterproductive. The idea behind affirmative action / admissions based on race is a good one: the idea is to help African-Americans to get a good education and, therefore, to improve their lives. But if one looks at Mr. Sanders’ research, one can doubt the use of it. If the wish of people truly is to help African-Americans help themselves, it seems to me that they should favor more open-minded research in this area.

Instead of letting Mr. Sanders conduct more research though, some liberals have decided to make it impossible for him to do some necessary follow-up work. They labeled his works “inconclusive” and that’s the end of it… or so they hope.

I hope for the African-American community that it will not be the end of it, and that people will - for a change - look at the problem objectively and, by doing so, come up with solutions that might actually work.

H/t to reader Mike for sending me the article, to be cross posted at my own blog.