Appointed Roles with Predetermined Race

[financeguy]

Gavin Newsom seems to have made news by stating that he would appoint an African American Female to Feinstein's Senate position. Biden also stated in the primary debate that he plans to appoint a Black female to the Supreme Court. He indicated simply that a female would be selected to the VP role before pressure was applied during the Floyd riots that this be upgraded to the more woke female POC.

My question regarding these statements is not political. Can you argue that they are legal? Ability to make political appointments aren't absolute. You can't just sell one, as Blogo and Jesse Jr found out the hard way. One would assume that just because a role is appointed by an elected official rather than selected by an HR department that it doesn't bypass rules. This is odd to me since no one was really saying it until last year. Euphemistic language about "diversity" in general was generally used rather than openly stating "this role is for Race X" although I have been aware of a few searches where that was definitely the objective without open statement.

What do you think about this? Is this going to become an accepted trend? If the woke class likes this and it becomes a common thing, what do they do when someone announces intent to pursue a white candidate? Given the number of appointments made at the federal, state and local level, someone is near guaranteed to do this.

[marshwiggle]

Gavin Newsom seems to have made news by stating that he would appoint an African American Female to Feinstein's Senate position. Biden also stated in the primary debate that he plans to appoint a Black female to the Supreme Court. He indicated simply that a female would be selected to the VP role before pressure was applied during the Floyd riots that this be upgraded to the more woke female POC.

My question regarding these statements is not political. Can you argue that they are legal? Ability to make political appointments aren't absolute. You can't just sell one, as Blogo and Jesse Jr found out the hard way. One would assume that just because a role is appointed by an elected official rather than selected by an HR department that it doesn't bypass rules. This is odd to me since no one was really saying it until last year. Euphemistic language about "diversity" in general was generally used rather than openly stating "this role is for Race X" although I have been aware of a few searches where that was definitely the objective without open statement.

What do you think about this? Is this going to become an accepted trend? If the woke class likes this and it becomes a common thing, what do they do when someone announces intent to pursue a white candidate? Given the number of appointments made at the federal, state and local level, someone is near guaranteed to do this.

Already happening. (In Quebec, but the reasons are interesting.)

[mahagonny]

For those old enough to remember, in 1984 Ronald Reagan made a campaign promise that he would appoint a woman to some particular post. Can't remember what. Walter Mondale responded by saying it's not much but a symbolic gesture. As for race, I could see it being seen as a fair game if for example a candidate says I'm going to appoint a black to a cabinet position and then grabs Tim Scott.

(more on edit)

What I have trouble understanding, on the legal side, is why some individuals are free to identify themselves as either white black, some, such as those of Dutch or Scottish ancestry, are stuck with white. Whereas, if the oldest human bones have been found in Africa, how are we not all black? Why is it only the more recent history applies? OTOH if I was born and spent my first five years of life in Seattle, then the family moved to Pittsburgh, and I'm now 45, and someone says 'where are you from?' I can certainly answer 'Seattle.'
You can re-identify or change other things about yourself that result in advantages, why not race?
Interesting scenario: if it's legal to say you're going to hire on the basis of race, how about hiring for stigmatized work that way? Could you announce "I'm deeply concerned about black unemployment. Therefore I'm going to hire only black applicants to work at my car wash business."

[marshwiggle]

Gavin Newsom seems to have made news by stating that he would appoint an African American Female to Feinstein's Senate position. Biden also stated in the primary debate that he plans to appoint a Black female to the Supreme Court. He indicated simply that a female would be selected to the VP role before pressure was applied during the Floyd riots that this be upgraded to the more woke female POC.

This raises an interesting issue. If black people make up about 13% of the US population, then black women make up about 7% of the US population. Even assuming that qualifications are uniformly distributed across the population, this means that 93% of qualified applicants wouldn't even be considered.

Are there so many qualified candidates for these positions at the pinnacle of their profession that rejecting over 90% sight unseen will not compromise the quality?

Imagine if instead the choice was made by making a list of the top 16 candidates for the position, and then picking a number out of a hat. Would people be happy with that as sufficient to ensure the quality necessary?

[Ruralguy]

I think politicians only make statements like this if they know what their own list will look like. Newsom knows of various  state officials, big city mayors, congress critters, etc. that he can appoint who fit the bill.

[Wahoo Redux]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

[Descartes]

I want the person for a role who is the VERY BEST.  If that's a white male - and if that whole body or class of persons are white males because of it - so be it.

The way to increase diversity isn't to guarantee it at the level of hiring or picking.  The way to accomplish diversity is to give more people the tools they need to BECOME equal (in talent, ability, education, experience) to the white males.  I note that this also doesn't mean just choosing to admit them to law school, medical school, whatever.  It means getting them to the same level of academic achievement in the first place as the white males who got into those places that prepared them for later roles.

[financeguy]

Quebec article was interesting. As someone who has done "house calls" in health enrollments years ago, I can confirm just how common it is for someone to react negatively to those of different groups from my coworker's experiences. On the other side, it was extremely common for me to be told by minority groups  that they wanted a physician of their own race. I never had a white person say this, but you could tell they often chose Dr. Smith before another with a name implying non-white ethnicity. Everyone was just as racist but the non-whites were out in the open about it. On a broader point, if you ever have a job that requires going into the homes of strangers, your faith in humanity will be reduced such that issues of race are not even toward the top. There really are people in this society who we are lucky do not leave the house more frequently to grace the rest of us with their presence.

Regarding these statements, if they become normalized, what would prevent someone from saying all appointed roles? (The president appoints about 4,000, for example.) Or some mayor of middle of nowhere who says he'll appoint a white chief of the local police department of four people. How is the black defendant not going to be able to allege bias in that scenario? I don't the woke crowd has thought past the initial head nod and twitter congratulations to the full implications of opening this can of worms.

[Caracal]

Legal? It's a political appointment. They can appoint anyone they want for whatever reason they want, as long as that reason isn't because somebody bribed them to do it. If voters don't approve of the appointment or the reasoning behind it they can express those feelings at the next election.

[Caracal]

[
Already happening. (In Quebec, but the reasons are interesting.)

What this highlights is the importance of the distinction between generally trying to hire a diverse work force and having a position where you are only going to hire someone of a certain race. It seems perfectly reasonable that if you have a social service agency you'd want your employees to be more representative of the communities they serve. If you run a group trying to help improve literacy among poor rural kids, it would be good if all your employees weren't middle and upper class people who grew up in the suburbs.

It would have been totally reasonable if the Quebec agency had tried to find ways to broaden their applicant pool in a way that would have increased the number of white applicants applying for their positions. There's lots of ways you could imagine doing this that would be totally kosher. For example, maybe there's a pipeline from particular schools or areas to this agency. Maybe you make a point to recruit more or build relationships at schools where you haven't gotten many applicants in the past, including places with different demographic makeups.

[Caracal]

Quebec article was interesting. As someone who has done "house calls" in health enrollments years ago, I can confirm just how common it is for someone to react negatively to those of different groups from my coworker's experiences. On the other side, it was extremely common for me to be told by minority groups  that they wanted a physician of their own race. I never had a white person say this, but you could tell they often chose Dr. Smith before another with a name implying non-white ethnicity. Everyone was just as racist but the non-whites were out in the open about it.

I don't really agree that this is necessarily racist, although this stuff is really fraught. I've always preferred female therapists, for example. It isn't that I think women are better at therapy, I just feel more comfortable talking to a woman in that context. I tend to worry that men are judging me. Obviously, that's bound up in all kinds of ways I think about gender, but therapy works better if you feel comfortable. This is pretty normal. When you ask a therapist if they could recommend someone for a friend, they often will ask if the person has any preference in terms of men or women.

The problem with thinking that racism isn't intertwined with power is that you end up adopting these ideas that obviously don't mesh with how the world actually works. If people are choosing their own doctor, they are allowed to choose based on whatever criteria they want, including race. (Obviously this doesn't apply if you go into the emergency room or urgent care clinic.) You can't stop people from making those sorts of choices. I think it would be good for people to be aware of how those choices interact with power structures and livelihoods. A white person preferring a white doctor is contributing to structures of racism in a way that a black person preferring a black doctor is not.

[financeguy]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Government officials do have accountabilities though. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not doubting that the appointments with predetermined races are legal, but logically once you say they can choose "whoever they want" but not if they are bribed, you are establishing that the power to appoint is not absolute and do what would otherwise be illegal in one context (taking a bribe while in office) why would it bypass any other thing illegal for that office holder to do? If the government were using a contractor (assume a no bid award) and the elected official told them "no blacks on this specific contract" I can't imagine that there isn't a legal challenge to that. I have to go back to the idea of the president appointing 4,000 people overall. I have to imagine (in addition to other problems like confirmation after backlash) that there would be some legal challenges, I'm just not sure what they would be and if they would succeed.

So if you can do it once, why not 4,000 times? This reminds me of the least convincing argument of the affirmative action movement, that it is used as "one of many factors." If it's acceptable to use, why "just a little bit?" The premise of this argument is self defeating.

[marshwiggle]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Here's one recent example. Sharon Osbourne got into trouble on "The View" for questioning why it is "racist" for Piers Morgan to say he doesn't believe Meghan Markle.

Let's parse that:

• She wasn't saying she didn't believe MM.
• She didn't say PM was justified in saying he didn't believe MM.
• What she said was that it isn't inherently racist of PM to say he didn't believe MM. (There could be numerous reasons for not believing someone, that have nothing to do with the person's identity.)

It doesn't matter whether you're a fan of MM, PM, or SO. But to infer or imply that SO is racist for saying that someone else isn't guilty of racism for simply disbelieving another person is absolutely nuts.

[Caracal]

Government officials do have accountabilities though. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not doubting that the appointments with predetermined races are legal, but logically once you say they can choose "whoever they want" but not if they are bribed, you are establishing that the power to appoint is not absolute and do what would otherwise be illegal in one context (taking a bribe while in office) why would it bypass any other thing illegal for that office holder to do? If the government were using a contractor (assume a no bid award) and the elected official told them "no blacks on this specific contract" I can't imagine that there isn't a legal challenge to that. I have to go back to the idea of the president appointing 4,000 people overall. I have to imagine (in addition to other problems like confirmation after backlash) that there would be some legal challenges, I'm just not sure what they would be and if they would succeed.

No, there really couldn't be any challenge. The president can appoint anyone he wants, subject to congressional approval if he needs it. Its different if you're talking about contractors or civil service workers who aren't political appointees. Those people have to be hired in accordance with all the rules.
You mentioned bribes. In that case, someone could be charged criminally, but that wouldn't result in removal from office. For that to happen on the federal level, they'd have to be impeached by congress and convicted by the senate.

[dismalist]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Here's one recent example. Sharon Osbourne got into trouble on "The View" for questioning why it is "racist" for Piers Morgan to say he doesn't believe Meghan Markle.

Let's parse that:

• She wasn't saying she didn't believe MM.
• She didn't say PM was justified in saying he didn't believe MM.
• What she said was that it isn't inherently racist of PM to say he didn't believe MM. (There could be numerous reasons for not believing someone, that have nothing to do with the person's identity.)

It doesn't matter whether you're a fan of MM, PM, or SO. But to infer or imply that SO is racist for saying that someone else isn't guilty of racism for simply disbelieving another person is absolutely nuts.

To generalize, what's going on is that something is declared true by definition. That can't be argued against, only defeated.

Religions tend to operate this way, devoid of any relationship to the real world. The individuals accused of racism might just as well have been accused of witchcraft. Impossible to disprove, except by drowning.