June 12, 2013 | 4:11 pm

Stop and frisk and common sense

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a lucid and compelling op/ed by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute entitled “How to Increase the Crime Rate Nationwide.”

In a politically incorrect piece, she argues why the likely outcome in New York’s widely followed “stop, question and frisk” case, presently before a United States District Court, might well have disastrous results far beyond the borders of Gotham or the Empire State.

The case, as generally reported, involves the New York Police Department’s practice of “stopping, questioning, and sometimes frisking individuals engaged in suspicious behavior.” What invariably accompanies reports about the case, and the NYPD’s practices, is that Blacks and Hispanics make up a disproportionately large percentage of the individuals who are “stopped, questioned and frisked.” Blacks comprised 55% of those stopped by the police in 2012 while they are only 23% of the population of the city. 

At first blush, and the thrust of the plaintiffs’ --the Center for Constitutional Rights-- arguments, is that a stop rate at more than double the African American population of the city is prima facie evidence of racism at work.

What MacDonald so cogently points out is that the prevalent narrative and the selectively reported data don’t explain what is really going on.

Some jaw dropping facts help explain why so many Blacks and Hispanics are the subject of “stop, question and frisk.” MacDonald points out that “Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city’s population.” Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under 3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace.” The numbers are staggering and support an unusual argument that Blacks may, in fact, be underrepresented in terms of “stops” at 55% compared to their preponderance among those committing crimes (78% of shooting suspects).

I suspect that the first response of those who are uncomfortable with these data is to assert that the NYPD disproportionately arrests Blacks and Hispanics for violent crimes due to the pervasive racism that infected law enforcement agencies for decades. The argument posits that cops in New York target visible minorities for arrest skewing the system of justice and the arrest demographics. 

But that argument loses its cogency in the light of two particular data points. The first is that 74% of all shooting victims in New York in 2012 were Black, hardly a number that could be manufactured by even the most racist of police departments unless they were busy shooting up minority neighborhoods. The likelihood that most of the perpetrators of those all too numerous shootings are also Black is self-evident. Crimes tend to cluster in communities.

An even more compelling counter to the argument that the crime data is skewed by a racist and ossified NYPD is the very demographic change that has transformed the department--- as it has numerous other ones across the country. The historic image of a white, corpulent New York cop oozing hostility is an anachronism.

As of the end of 2012 a majority of the NYPD’s rank and file officers was minority (e.g. Black, Latino or Asian) for the first time ever. While the overall majority of NYPD cops is white (53%), the cops on the beat (those most likely to make “stop, question and frisk” decisions) are majority minority. The likelihood of a majority minority police force systematically selecting minorities to harass on a scale that produces the numbers at play here (i.e. more than double their percentage of the population) strains credulity.

Another uncomfortable fact, one that has little sway in Federal court, is that the process as practiced by the NYPD works! Since it was instituted in the early 1990s, “New York has experienced the longest and steepest crime drop in the modern history of policing. Murders have gone down by nearly 80%, and combined major felonies by nearly 75%.”

Also often overlooked in the passionate discussion of “minority profiling” is that the major beneficiaries of the policy and the drop in crime are the residents of the formerly crime plagued areas. “Minorities make up nearly 80% of the drop in homicide victims since the early 1990s. New York policing has transformed inner-city neighborhoods and allowed their hardworking members a once unthinkable freedom from fear.” 

MacDonald correctly warns that the plaintiffs’ success in New York would encourage similar law suits around the country; actions that could undermine the astonishing advances that have been made in law enforcement and crime prevention in big cities over the past two decades.

It would be a shame if in the pursuit of a well-intentioned effort to protect minorities and their rights that they would become the people who are once again consigned to a life of fear, violence and death. That benefits no one.

May 31, 2013 | 3:54 pm

UC Leads by Example

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Seal of the University of California

Today’s New York Times’ lead story focuses on an issue that will undoubtedly be front page news in papers across the country over the next few weeks---alternatives to race and ethnicity based affirmative action in public higher education.

The Supreme Court will, on one of the next four Mondays, hand down a ruling on the Fisher case involving race based admissions at the University of Texas.

Should the Court rule that such programs are unconstitutional there will, undoubtedly, be much teeth gnashing and predictions of doom and gloom about the future of minorities in higher education. However, The New York Times piece today, and several others it has published over the past few months, document why that need not be so.

Today’s article points out how socio-economically based affirmative action can offer a leg up to talented, but disadvantaged, students if the universities are determined to make it happen. Their stellar example is the effort of the University of California which virtually leads the nation in admitting Pell Grant eligible students (the main form of federal aid for low income and moderate income students) to their ranks. UCLA and Berkeley are (at 36% and 34% respectively) the national leaders among research universities.  Parenthetically, Community Advocates praised the efforts of the UC’s (for which they had hitherto received little credit) in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times nearly three years ago.

What may put off some folks is that the numbers at the UC don’t come easily; it’s not a function of waving a magic wand and declaring students qualified or lowering standards of admission. It is, as The New York Times pointed out a few weeks ago, a result of massive outreach by the University to underprivileged schools and their students over years and years. As President Yudof of the UC observed, “We’ve worked very hard to widen the pipeline, and there is still an enormous need to do more.” 

The Times explained, they “have embedded themselves deeply in disadvantaged communities, working with schools, students and parents to identify promising teenagers and get more of them into college.”    UC Irvine alone spends upwards of $7 million annually on outreach. The UC system spent as much as $85 million on such programs after race based affirmative action was banned in California in 1996.

The programs, as the Times makes clear, have paid off and the UC’s should be proud. Students who attend public schools where there is, on average, one counselor per 1,000 students, now have a chance competing against kids from private schools where the college admissions process is seamless.

Whether one believes in race based affirmative action or not, there is little doubt that the template that the UC offers--- of providing opportunities for those who are disadvantaged, independent of race or ethnicity, is a way forward that is worth pursuing no matter how the Supreme Court rules over the next month.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 25, 2013 | 6:43 pm

OBAMA’S NO EXCUSES CREDO

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

President Obama delivers the commencement address at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. (Curtin Compton / EPA / May 19, 2013

This op/ed appears in tomorrow's Los Angeles Times Opinion section. It is authored by Community Advocates' chairman and president.

Los Angeles Times

Obama's no-excuses credo
In a speech to black college graduates, the president took on the peddlers of victimization - and demolished them.

 By David A. Lehrer and Hon. Richard J. Riordan

May 26, 2013

On May 19, President Obama gave a commencement address at Morehouse College, a predominantly black men's college in Atlanta. His words and message were forceful, timely and uniquely befitting the first African American president.

The president said what few others could say and still be considered politically acceptable. He debunked the notions of victimization and impotence so pervasive in talk about race, religion and ethnicity today, and encouraged the young black grads to "strive to do what's right ... [to] work harder and dream bigger."

Obama laid waste to the advocates of doom and gloom - the Cornel Wests and Tavis Smileys, et al - who argue that not much has changed in America in terms of race relations and acceptance:

"Here, under the tutelage of men like Dr. [Benjamin] Mays, young Martin [Luther King] learned to be unafraid. And he, in turn, taught others to be unafraid. And over time, he taught a nation to be unafraid. And over the last 50 years, thanks to the moral force of Dr. King and a Moses generation that overcame their fear and their cynicism and their despair, barriers have come tumbling down and new doors of opportunity have swung open, and laws and hearts and minds have been changed to the point where someone who looks just like you can somehow come to serve as president of these United States of America."

Just in case those in the audience and the rest of America didn't get his point, the president laid out the implications of the new "open doors":

"We've got no time for excuses. Not because the bitter legacy of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they have not. Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there. It's just that in today's hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil - many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did - all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned."

That is a powerful answer to those who focus only on the "excuses" - the remnants of discriminatory conduct, the continued existence of hate groups, the 10% of the American public that seems intractably bigoted - as seeming proof that progress in the realm of race relations and tolerance is an illusion, a thin veneer on a persistently racist America. The president isn't looking for perfection or nirvana but for an America in which hard work pays off and barriers of bigotry and discrimination remain rare and anomalous. He reminded his audience that whatever hurdles they have overcome pale "in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured - and they overcame them. And if they overcame them, you can overcome them too."

That's a forceful admonition to those who inflate problems, conjure up excuses and do everything to avoid asking people for effort, persistence and grit to confront what is a challenging and complex world for everyone. The president reminded the students that,

"if you stay hungry, if you keep hustling, if you keep on your grind and get other folks to do the same - nobody can stop you.... If you set an example in your own lives and do your part to help meet the challenges of our time, then I'm confident that, together, we will continue the never-ending task of perfecting our union."

In this speech, Obama demolishes the arguments of the victimization peddlers and those who have continued to purvey a message of gloom and defeat, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. They portray an America intent on frustrating and marginalizing minorities, making success nearly impossible.

The president has lived in, led and argues for a very different America. He has laid an important foundation for honest talk about race and acceptance in America. Let's hope he is listened to.

 

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 16, 2013 | 3:52 pm

REMINDER—-TOMORROW NIGHT AN ACCLAIMED PANEL AND AN IMPORTANT TOPIC—-SPACE IS LIMITED

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

It's a critical time for immigration reform in this country. Washington is getting set to make major changes, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 1980's under President Ronald Reagan. The issues affect families every day, alter economies for years and touch every aspect of American life. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants.

Who has the power to shape this new legislation? How will problems of border security, visas, cultural differences, family unification and more be solved? Why are lawmakers keen to enact change now? Has there been a paradigm shift? Who are the likely winners and losers?

Hear from a truly distinguished panel of experts who will discuss:

Immigration at the Crossroads---Where Do We Go Now?

Prof. Gabriel J. Chin--Professor Chin is a professor of law at the University of California, Davis Law School. He is a scholar of immigration law, criminal procedure and race and the law. He has been widely published in law journals and in lay publications on the issue of immigration.

Jessica Vaughan--Jessica Vaughan serves as Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society. Her articles have appeared in the Washington Post, Boston Globe, The Economist, In the National Interest, Providence Journal, Hartford Courant, Arizona Republic and other publications.

Prof. Dowell Myers--Dowell Myers is professor of policy, planning, and demography at the University of Southern California, where he also directs the USC PopDynamics Research Group. Professor Myers is an interdisciplinary scholar well known for his research on the interaction between demographics and many aspects of public policy. He also is the author of the award-winning book Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America.

Mickey Kaus--Mickey Kaus writes the Kausfiles, a blog at the Daily Caller. In 1999 he was among the first American political bloggers on the internet. He was a candidate for the California Democratic nomination for the US Senate in 2010. Kaus is the author of The End of Equality and has worked as a journalist for Newsweek, The New Republic and Washington Monthly, among others.

Wednesday May 22, 2013
6:30 PM-8:00 PM
The Crawford Family Forum at KPCC
474 South Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, 91105

RSVP or call (626) 583-5232.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 8, 2013 | 2:45 pm

Political Correctness and Honesty—Time for a Change

Posted David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks

Boston Bombing carnage

The bombing of the Boston Marathon last month has called into question some notions that have been close to sacrosanct in the civil rights/human relations communities for decades.

That act of terror has raised profound questions about the nature of our democracy, the rights of individuals and groups, the tolerance level of the public towards minorities and the balance between individual rights and the public good.

The Boston Marathon bombing has, by virtue of the alleged perpetrators, raised the question as to how far law enforcement has gone and ought to go to prevent the recurrence of similar “lone wolf” acts of terror by Islamist jihadists.

The facile and oft repeated response is that no group should be “profiled.” Lacking “probable cause” that a crime is being planned, no group should be watched nor individual members of a group monitored more closely than others. The traditional notion is that unless a crime is imminent individuals and groups are to be viewed and treated equally and at a distance.

But the Boston Marathon bombing (committed not by foreign nationals sneaking their way onto our shores) callously and murderously executed by seemingly normal neighbors validates the position taken by the New York Police Department (for which it has been widely vilified) that certain groups warrant closer scrutiny and, yes, profiling.

Last year, the NYPD’s Demographics Unit was found to have been gathering information on Muslims not only in New York but in other parts of the northeast United States. They were vigorously criticized in some quarters (the Associated Press won a Pulitzer Prize for writing about the NYPD’s practices). The ACLU ridiculed the NYPD’s concept of terrorist “radicalization”---however, the Department’s analysis of likely terrorists reads like a primer on the brothers Tsarnaev. Some believe that had the Tsarnaevs been in New York they would have been on the NYPD’s surveillance list and closely watched.

A recent Wall Street Journal column pointed out that the NYPD has thwarted 16 terrorist attacks in the city since 9/11. A fact that it is easy to be blasé about, but the countless lives that weren’t snuffed out or destroyed in the absence of terror is a significant accomplishment.

In response to his critics, Mayor Bloomberg has been refreshingly honest,

the police department goes where there are allegations, and they look to see whether those allegations are true. That’s what you’d expect them to do. That’s what you’d want them to do. Remind yourself when you turn off the light tonight.

The NYPD was equally clear in response to the critics of its monitoring of Muslim student activities and Muslim Student Associations (“MSA”) on college campuses. The NYPD spokesman, in a rather prescient observation last year noted that “Some of the most dangerous Western al Qaeda-linked/inspired terrorists since 9/11 were radicalized and/or recruited at universities in MSAs.”

To acknowledge the obvious is not to stereotype Muslim Americans or Arab Americans; it is simply to state what most Americans can glean from reading their newspapers and watching the news over the past decade--- there is a problem that Islam must deal with.

As The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman recently wrote:

But we must ask a question only Muslims can answer: What is going on in your community that a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable and justifies a violent response, and everything Muslim extremists do to other Muslims is ignorable and calls for mostly silence?

The tendency of opinion molders and other leaders to skirt the obvious and pretend that Muslims and Quakers should be viewed similarly is partially grounded in a belief that breaching political correctness could degenerate into dangerous bigotry and stereotyping of Muslim and Arab Americans (the internment of Japanese Americans haunts our memories).

That fear seems not to be warranted, even if it should always give us pause and temper our actions and words.

Americans have absorbed the message of the civil rights era well---we have learned not to extrapolate from the individual to the group. A problem with some youthful Muslim males does not extend to the colleague at work or the worshippers at the mosque.  We have learned to parse bad guys and potential bad guys from normal folk.

In the light of the series of incidents that have occurred over the past decade---Ft. Hood, the Christmas Day bomber, Times Square, etc. ---there would be ample grounds for suspicion, hostility and nastiness against Muslim Americans were that our tendency.  Yet, an August, 2011 Pew Study found that:

At a personal level, most [Muslims] think that ordinary Americans are friendly (48%) or neutral (32%) toward Muslim Americans; relatively few (16%) believe the general public is unfriendly toward Muslim Americans. About two-thirds (66%) say that the quality of life for Muslims in the U.S. is better than in most Muslim countries.
Strikingly, Muslim Americans are far more satisfied with the way things are going in the country (56%) than is the general public (23%). Four years ago, Muslim Americans and the public rendered fairly similar judgments about the state of the nation (38% of Muslims vs. 32% of the general public were satisfied).

We ought to give ourselves the credit that we have earned and receive honest and frank assessments on matters that can and have impacted life and death (even if some profiling, warranted by data, occurs).

Most of us have learned to resist Islamophobia and the facile resort to stereotyping and bigotry. Religious leaders and civil rights activists have successfully imparted that message to several generations of Americans, and it seems to be sticking.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 23, 2013 | 2:52 pm

The Islamophobia Myth

Posted David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks

Photo by Wikipedia.

This past week, three of Robin Abcarian's Perspective columns in the Los Angeles Times concerned the "new worries" of some American Muslims that the "torrent of post-9/11 harassment and hysteria will be repeated." Abcarian started writing about these "worries" even before the suspected Boston Marathon bombers were identified as, in fact, Muslim Americans.

The not-too-subtle subtext of Abcarian's pieces is that Americans harbor hostility toward Muslims that will well to the surface again in the wake of the Boston bombings. After all, as she pointed out, hate crimes against Muslim Americans spiked 1,600% in the months after 9/11 (from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001). In her piece on Friday, Abcarian basically hinges her analysis on an isolated anecdote in Ohio that suggests that some Americans are so mean-spirited and vengeful toward Muslims that they took out their "hysteria" on a 10-year-old kid.

It is a dangerous strategy to extrapolate from an anomalous incident to reach grandiose conclusions, especially in an era of polling and focus groups. There are far more reliable sources -- namely, survey data -- than a mother describing her kid in rural Ohio.

In fact, the evidence shows that American attitudes toward Muslims are the polar opposite of what Abcarian would have you believe. Between 100 and 200 anti-Muslim hate crimes have been committed against Muslims per year since 2002, according to the FBI -- this, in a nation of about 315 million people and thousands upon thousands of crimes. Those crimes occurred over a period in which there was the Times Square bomber, the attempted "underwear bombing" of a passenger place, the Ft. Hood massacre and numerous other dreadful acts and planned acts linked in some way to radical Islam. Just this week Canadian authorities announced they had stopped a planned terrorist attack on a busy passenger train.

This isn't to minimize violence committed against Muslims, but as a point of reference, FBI statistics show that anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2011 numbered 771; that same year, hate crimes against Muslims totaled 157 incidents. (There are between 5 million and 6 million Muslims in the U.S., according to various estimates, and there are about 6.5 million Jews.) Anti-Jewish crimes outnumbered those committed against Muslims by nearly a 5-to-1 margin, yet no rational person would imply that there is a wave of anti-Semitic harassment and hysteria in America. There were more than 2,000 incidents directed at blacks in 2011 (there are about 39 million African Americans in the U.S.). There would have to be nearly seven times as many incidents against Muslim Americans for the hate crimes to equal, on a per-capita basis, the rate of hate crimes against African Americans. So much for our anti-Muslim hysteria.

In August 2011, the Pew Center published a study that belies the notion that Muslims in America are, as Abcarian quoted one person, "treated like crap." The study revealed:

At a personal level, most [Muslims] think that ordinary Americans are friendly (48%) or neutral (32%) toward Muslim Americans; relatively few (16%) believe the general public is unfriendly toward Muslim Americans. About two-thirds (66%) say that the quality of life for Muslims in the U.S. is better than in most Muslim countries.

Strikingly, Muslim Americans are far more satisfied with the way things are going in the country (56%) than is the general public (23%). Four years ago, Muslim Americans and the public rendered fairly similar judgments about the state of the nation (38% of Muslims vs. 32% of the general public were satisfied).

To be absolutely clear, a majority of Muslim Americans evidence greater satisfaction at the way things are going in the United States than the general public by more than a 2-to-1 margin -- hardly an attitude that would survive pervasive harassment.

Americans should be applauded for their continuing resistance to stereotyping and Islamophobia. We get that it is wrong to generalize from an individual to the group. Religious leaders and civil rights activists have successfully imparted that message to several generations of Americans, and it seems to have stuck.

Our broadcast and print media over the last week have made discernible efforts (even in the now-infamous CNN gaffe about an arrest of a "dark-skinned" man) to avoid inflammatory rhetoric or generalizing from individuals to a broader group. Most mainstream reporters seem to be aware of the sensitive work they are involved in and that emotions can run high. Commentators appear to balance the transparently obvious fact of repeated incidents carried out by adherents of militant Islam with not indicting an entire religious group for the sins of the few.

Rather than citing "bad memories and new worries," we should recognize and praise the tolerance that Americans have continued to demonstrate in the face of repeated outrages.*

* A version of this article appeared on the Los Angeles Times Blowback page.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 12, 2013 | 3:16 pm

A Great Day

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

General Michael Hayden

As residents of Los Angeles many of us are inundated with invitations for events with all sorts of intriguing topics, alluring speakers, and entertaining extravaganzas. On any given evening we can hear a United States Senator or see a Cirque du Soleil performance in a private home or be awed by a 3-D spectacular about our favorite non-profit organization.

It’s fairly unusual though, for an event to offer substance and interesting speakers across a wide array of provocative and timely topics. That’s why an upcoming conference warrants your attention and attendance, the Annual Leadership Education Forum ("ALEF") sponsored by the American Friends of the Hebrew University (“AFHU”). Full disclosure, I happen to be chairing the day-long conference.

At 9:00 on Sunday, April 28th at the Skirball Cultural Center ALEF will have an array of panelists and keynote speakers that are dazzling.

The aim is to pair local experts with those coming from the Hebrew University to discuss and explore important current topics. The speakers include the former head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden, in dialogue with the former head of the Israeli Shin Bet, Ambassador Carmi Gillon, and their moderator will be Nicholas Goldberg the Editor of the Editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times. Another panel will have Jewish Journal editor, Rob Eshman, in a colloquy with Professor Reuven Hazan, chair of the political science department at the Hebrew University and Professor Steven Spiegel, Professor of Political Science at UCLA and director of its Center for Middle East Development. A third panel will explore advances in neuroscience (“Cracking the Brain’s Code”) with a panel moderated by USC’s Executive Vice-Provost, Professor Michael Quick, in dialogue with two Hebrew University professors, Eilon Vaadia and Ehud Zohary, both prominent neuroscientists.

To top off the afternoon, the luncheon speaker will be Patrick Soon-Shiong, one of the pre-eminent scientific and medical minds in the world today. His cutting edge discoveries and patents have altered the approach to both diabetes and cancer. He also happens to be among Los Angeles' most generous philanthropists.

For a program of this heft, the price tag is a relatively modest $125 (including lunch). Space is available and reservations can be made by clicking here.

I hope you will join us.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 10, 2013 | 11:15 am

Turning Back the Clock

Posted David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks

Rep. Hahn, Sen. Boxer and Wendy Greuel

The Los Angeles mayoralty race seems to have devolved into a contest to see which of the candidates can rack up more endorsements.

Specifically, endorsements aimed at relevant constituencies that might be swayed by the endorser’s identity, reputation, or cache. From Magic Johnson to Richard Riordan from Jan Perry to Kevin James-- every day brings a new revelation.

But over the past few days there was an endorsement by a group of politicos that was a bit troubling and seemed like a time warp.

On Thursday, several female politicians---including Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Janice Hahn and Senator Barbara Boxer---held a press conference with Controller Wendy Greuel to endorse her for mayor. They staged the conference in front of a display of suffragettes and other historic figures in the women’s movement.

In their remarks (at least as reported in the press) both former Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer urged voters to support Greuel, essentially, because she is a woman.

Pelosi noted that Greuel’s election will “lift up people across the country.” The LA Times reported that Boxer urged support for Greuel because if she isn’t elected “we could see a government without one female in leadership…that is totally unacceptable….I've never claimed women are better than men, some women are, some aren't [but without adequate numbers of women and minorities holding elective office] you're not a representative democracy, and democracy is threatened."

Senator Boxer’s take seems to be that in an era when increasing numbers of Americans have evidenced a willingness to elect individuals independent of considerations of race or ethnicity or gender---we ought to turn back the clock—or else.

The reality is that we have an African American president (in a country that is still majority white), that the numbers of women in the Congress of the United States have reached record levels (a 600% increase over the past 34 years) and that this state in particular has had two female senators (both Jewish, to boot) for over twenty years. It is hard to imagine that “democracy is threatened” if a particular female candidate isn’t elected. Across the country, over 17% of the mayors of cities with populations over 100,000 are women---the results in Los Angeles aren’t going to alter that trend.

The Senator then proceeded to offer some crude stereotypes to justify her assessment of why Angelenos have to elect a woman as mayor, “women tend to be more collaborative…women tend to be less interested in being something more interested in doing something.”

Twenty years ago this kind of vulgar appeal to identity politics might have been more understandable---at least to those who saw race/ethnicity/gender as relevant criteria for electoral decisions---they arguably had a point to make that touched upon reality. But today urging that race/ethnicity/gender criteria should be determinative is insulting, inaccurate and dangerous.

Candidates need to be evaluated because of their positions on vital issues, because of their track records as elected officials and because of their plans for the future---- not because their gender tends to be “more collaborative” or because there aren’t more of “their kind” in office.

If the words of Boxer, Pelosi et al. were offered by a white candidate or a male candidate their offensive nature would be transparently clear---that is hardly a reason to vote for someone. Blatant appeals to “tribal” voting of any sort are, hopefully, an anachronism that we have begun to transcend. Issues, character, platforms, plans----not happenstances of birth---- ought to dominate our political dialogues.

Earlier this decade in an LA Times' op/ed, State Senator Gloria Romero (both a female and a Latina who might have benefited from “tribal” voting) sagely perceived a trend that she hoped would continue:

But ultimately, we trust the voters. Most citizens cast their votes the American way -- they vote for the most qualified candidate, regardless of race or gender. All we have to do is compete for votes the old fashioned way: by earning them.

Hopefully, the “American way” of assessing candidates will prevail and appeals to other, irrelevant, criteria won’t.

0 Comments — Leave your comment