|
Edited on Sat Jan-17-04 11:11 AM by beaconess
attempt to introduce diversity into his cabinet.
The fact that Vermont's minority population is small is not a valid excuse for failing to do this. The population may be small, but that doesn't mean that they are not entitled to a voice in his cabinet.
I know that it wouldn't have been easy to make this happen, but it wasn't that difficult. In my view, Dean was faced with two choices. He could either have made a little extra effort - taken affirmative action to reach out and include minorities in his cabinet or he could have done little or nothing, just going along with the status quo. Unfortunately, he took the easy road, thereby facilitating the perpetuation of a complete lack of diversity.
Diversity of this kind is important, not just so that there could be one black face in the cabinet, but for larger reasons. First, Dean's ability to govern would have been enhanced and enriched had he had the benefit of diverse views in his cabinet. Just as he recognized as a young man the value of interacting with people different from him and, thus, requested a black college roommate, he should have attempted to include people of different racial backgrounds in his inner circle as governor.
Moreover, having minorities in the highest reaches of his government would have been a powerful symbol that broadened the attitudes and perspectives of Vermonters, helping them better understand that minorities are qualified to do all manner of things. And it could have offered encouragement to young minorities, demonstrating that they, too can get there from here.
There are many things he could have actually done to achieve these goals. First, I just don't buy the excuse that there were no minorities qualified for the positions. That's a bullshit argument, based upon negative racial stereotypes and assumptions. I have no doubt that if he had tried, he could have found numerous highly qualified candidates. Dean has proven that he is a master at overcoming obstacles. This would have been a great goal to focus his estimable skills on achieving. And it wouldn't have required all that much effort - had he just put the word out among his friends and colleagues throughout and outside of the state, he would have been deluged with information about qualified minorities.
Second, even if he couldn't find anyone qualified for the top posts - a premise I don't buy - it is not good enough to just say, "Oh, well, I tried. Never mind. Let's just get back to business with an all-white cabinet." It troubles me that it never seemed to occur to him that the "fact" that there were no qualified minorities in Vermont might be an indication of a deeper, more serious problem. Did he ever wonder why? After all, there seemed to be no dearth of qualified whites. Was it that blacks were just inherently unqualified? I doubt that Dean would think that for a moment - I do not think that he is by any measure a racist or believes that blacks are inferior. So, he would have to figure that there was some other problem. Could it have been that opportunities for minorities in the state were limited? Why? Was there a way to remedy this situation? Could the state develop an affirmative action program to attract qualified minorities to the state in general and state government in particular? In a short matter of time, minorities will be represented at various levels of government and eventually develop the experience and qualifications to help them move into higher positions.
Those are the kinds of questions and concerns that should be raised by someone who claims to be forward-thinking on race. It deeply troubles me that none of this seemed to occur to Dean. Instead, his defense for not having minorities in his cabinet is a simplistic, knee-jerk, "there aren't that many blacks in Vermont." That demonstrates, to me, a lack of sensitivity and clear thinking about an issue that is very, very complicated and needs more than simple bromides such as "we have to talk about race." Talking about race involves more than talking at people. It requires asking tough questions of ourselves and others. Leading on race means more than taking the path of least resistance. It requires tough choices and difficult journeys.
I think it's terribly unfortunate that when he had the power to make a difference, Dean didn't ask why? and why not? and how? and then push to find the answers. And, when faced with two choices, instead of taking a different, albeit more difficult, path, Howard Dean opted to follow the easy road. The fact that he did does not make him a racist or a bad person. But it does show that he is ill-equipped to posture himself as a forward-thinking leader on race.
I hope this clarifies things.
|