Recently Sen. Barack Obama said on national TV that his daughters shouldn’t receive any admissions preference to college because they’re “pretty advantaged.” As I pointed out here, however, he’s never voiced any opposition to other “pretty advantaged” people receiving preferences based on their race, sex, or ethnicity. Quite the contrary, he went into Michigan and actively campaigned against the elimination of those preferences.
Not surprisingly, no other Democrats, or their acolytes in the national media, have pressed Obama on this contradiction.
Now comes Sen. John Edwards, with his own version of an empty rhetorical aversion to such preferences. Take a look at the following exchange from last night’s CNN/YouTube debate:
COOPER: Senator Edwards, earlier this week, your wife said that you would be a better advocate for women than Senator Clinton. Was she right?
EDWARDS: Well, let me say first that on the question that was just asked to Senator Obama…
COOPER: We prefer you stay on the question…
EDWARDS: I’m going to stay on your question. I promise I’ll answer that question. But the first thing I want to say — and I want to speak for everybody, I believe, on this stage — anybody who’s considering not voting for Senator Obama because he’s black or for Senator Clinton because she’s a woman, I don’t want their vote. I don’t want them voting for me.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us generously assume, for the moment, that Edwards did honestly and accurately speak both for himself and all other Democratic candidates in emphatically rejecting the support of anyone who would vote for a woman or a black because he or she is a woman or a black. (Leave aside for this same moment that Hillary “is building what amounts to a separate organization devoted to winning women’s votes. As she pursues the Democratic nomination, the scale of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s outreach appears unprecedented.” Moreover [from here], “gender isn’t secondary to Clinton. Women are a pillar of the former first lady’s strategy to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.”)
Left unanswered — largely, or at least in part, because it was left unasked — is the following seemingly obvious question: what is wrong with voting for someone based on the candidate’s race or gender that is not also wrong with admitting or hiring someone based on the candidate’s race or gender?
Where is the “(Applause)” among Democrats for that question and its answer?
UPDATE
In his comment below, reader Dan Burch points out an interesting and important misreading in my post. Read it, and my additional comment.
Sir, It would seem that affirmative action for the wealthy is apart of the status quo. I take Senator Obama’s statement that he wouldn’t expect his daugters to recieve any advantage because of their class status, to be rather disingenous. For better or for worst this seems to be a reality of the context in which we live.
Indeed, anyone suggesting that the rich fail to recieve any incentive because of their class status is about as believeable as a fairytale told to a four year old.
I am not calling for an end to this practice, however I am calling for recognition of this fact. Recognition of this fact seems to have no affect on the debate on affirmative action for women or for your favorite target, blacks.
In light of the current debate and trajetory of Affirmative Action I call on proponents of AA to adjust themselves to current reality. In order to do this I think one must envision the movement using the resources that it has at hand. For instance, I can’t understand why HBCU’s are not ramping up marketing schemes to attract blacks to their campuses, nor can I understand why black college athletes go off to colleges which simply see them as revenue builders. It would seem more prudent to attend an HBCU, and not only get an education but, also assist in building the reputation of that school to a point where it is recognized as a competitive institution of higher learning.
In replying to my post yesterday you stated that my arugument sounded much like a Marcus Garvey’s back to Africa movement. In response I would argue that there is no need to go back to Africa since Blacks do for better or for worst control neighborhoods and cities across the country. It would seem that we simply must use the resources and talents that we already have in hand.
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed a key point in Mr. Edwards’ statement. He specifically said he did not want the vote of anyone willing to vote against a woman or black based simply on sex or race. Anyone willing to vote for them on that basis is still fair game to vote for him.
Dan – Good catch. Unfortunately I did read right over, or past, the “not” in Mr. Edwards’ statement. Even read correctly, however, I think it is still an empty rhetorical gesture, and raises several additional questions.
First, if it’s perfectly acceptable to vote for a candidate on the basis of race or gender, and hence presumably also acceptable to hire or admit a candidate based on race or gender, presumably Mr. Edwards does not oppose all discrimination based on race or gender and certainly does not oppose such discrimination on principle. That is, he approves some discrimination based on race or gender, even though the relevant language of civil rights statutes prohibits discrimination against “any person,” not any black or female person, based on those suspect categories.
Second, and perhaps more interesting, Mr. Edwards, based on whatever principle one can find lurking in his statement, would have no objection — or again, no principled objection — to someone voting for himself or, say, Sen. Biden because they’re white or because they’re men, and no objection to someone voting for Sen. Clinton because she’s white.
This post is over the top funny. Edwards refuses to accept votes that he’s never going to receive! Just to prove that he won’t take no check from no racist, sexist homophobe. Classic! Hell, he could hold a party for half of black America in his 28,000 square foot house.
I’m surprised, John, that you haven’t spoken about the dismissal of Ward Churchill, fake Indian deluxe. Churchill is the ultimate gamer of the race and sex quota system. He became a full professor and a department head without any serious academic credentials simply by pretending to be a fiercely radical Indian. In light of this, the Mau-Mauing game played by Cobra and FreeMan doesn’t seem so lame, does it? There is a real payoff.
In my line of work (arts and publishing) I have met more than a few young men who are, I believe, pretending to be gay for the perks. If you are perceived as being gay, you are officially one of the “oppressed.” Ward Churchill is not the only player gaming the race and sex quota scam for all it’s worth.
B,
The reasons that the HBCU’s do not attract more students is that most of them are small, have limited degrees programs, are underfunded, and located in small towns.
In athletics, most of them have poor facilities that do not match in any way the facilities at the BCS schools. Recruiting football and basketball players is about facilities, coaching, and exposure. Black athletes will get little of that at a HBCU.
In addition, the HBCU have some of the worse Title IX compliance issues in all of college sports.