The New York Times thinks Obama is biased in favor of white males

There have been a series of articles in the New York Times recently, nothing that Obama’s most recent set of appointments have resulted in a staff dominated by white males, and implying (subtly or not) that this is some kind of problem.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/obama-defends-his-record-on-diversity-in-appointments/

Does anyone agree that this is a problem? Do you think it is because Obama is actually a sexist racist? Or, is it that there is a shortage of qualified minority and female candidates for the positions he needs to fill? If the latter, should he intentionally hire less-qualified candidates simply to promote diversity?

I think that the top tiers of government, business, and academia generally contain a greater proportion of white males than the population as a whole. Major government appointments are generally taken from these groups, so if appointments are taken without regard to race or gender, they’re likey to end up stacked with white men.

As for whether it’s a problem, I say no. Like someone once said, I look forward to the time when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

For the most part this is prompted by complaints from Republicans. There are also some Democrats who aren’t happy. It’s true that most of the incoming cabinet members are white guys, although there are other positions that need to be filled.

No, I don’t think Obama is biased in favor of white males. I think he’s trying to choose competence and not picking based on race, but instead based on the criteria of being good at what they do AND based on his own political world view and orientation. Basically, when you look at all the factors he is looking for in the people he is picking, and you consider that white males make up a huge percentage of the population it’s not that big a mystery as to why he seems to be mostly choosing them. Unless someone can show me some viable alternatives of black or other minorities that would meet all his criteria and were clearly better, of course.

Never mind the loaded word “biased.” The simple reality is that Barack Obama, the idol of the Left and the poster boy for “diversity,” surrounds himself with largely white, male advisers.

Are we on the Right “complaining” about that? Not at all- he won the election, and he can appoint whomever he wants to open positions.

We just ask the Left to make up their collective minds- is diversity REALLY important to you, or not? If it’s not, kindly shut up about it when the Republicans are back in power.

On the other hand, if it IS important to you, YOU should be the ones screaming at Barack for surrounding himself with white males, rather than creating a Cabinet that “looks like America.”

Did you put mock quotes around diversity because Obama is mixed white/black?

Gee, let’s see. First term had a woman for Sec. of State, Sec. of HHS, Surgeon General, Administrator of the EPA, Acting Secretary of Commerce, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Labor, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and Homeland Security Director. His most valued advisor is Valerie Jarrett. He appointed more women to the Supreme Court than any prior President.

What’s the problem again?

:rolleyes:

You are not paying **any **attention, huh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/susan-rice-withdraws_n_2295514.html

No, the right will complain and derail any appointment, and it does not matter if it was choice that also took care of the diversity issue.

The man is not creating a sitcom. The first African American president above all doesn’t want a legacy of being a failure. That is his concern. Everyone else, including shrieking spastic liberals, can pound sand.

The problem isn’t Obama.
The problem is the NY Times. – and its culture of political correctness.

There is an old, tired joke --but it’s true:
If an asteroid is about to destroy the earth, the Times will run the headline
“Planet will be destroyed–women will suffer disproportionally.”

Somebody needs to tell the right wing about this - they’re convinced Obama hates white people.

Ahhhh, you’re just asking questions.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your info from, but the Democratic leaning punditry is all over this. The joke is that maybe he needs some of Romney’s “binders full of women”.

Personally, I’m not too concerned. What concerns me more is that his “team of rivals” approach in the first term has turned into a “team of yes-men” approach now.

I have never cared too much about the racial or gender makeup of anyone’s cabinet. In fact, because my main source of news in the past 4 years has been NPR, I didn’t even know that at least one cabinet member was black.

Maybe he’s asked some qualified ‘diverse’ people and they declined.

From what I’ve seen Obama’s appointments have been pretty diverse, but people are just complaining that they want it to be even more diverse. Not much in that.

[If there’s some basis for it, then it’s possible that Obama feels less pressure to prove himself in this area, as he has minority credentials himself.]

It should also be noted that he wanted Susan Rice for SoS, until she was shot down.

Seems like much ado about nothing, to me.

Do you have a basis for this claim?

Clearly, this points to some sort of genetic inferiority shared by women and minorities.

Ah, irony.

“Largely” gives you plenty of wiggle room. Can I ask you for anything more specific? Out of 20 cabinet level positions, I think Obama started his first term with 9 white men. 6 of the 20 cabinet-level posts (Obama elevated the EPA and UN Ambassador posts back to cabinet level status) were filled by women, I count two Latino/a cabinet members and three Asian members, one of whom was replaced later by a white man and then by a white woman, and two black cabinet members. Obama’s response to this issue has been that if you look at a larger group of senior officials, his administration compares favorably to any of its predecessors and that he’s the first president to put two women on the Supreme Court (including the first Latina justice). It’s true that some of the minorities in his cabinet are stepping down between terms, but so far I think the only job going to a white guy that wasn’t already held by a white guy is Secretary of State.

Of course.

This doesn’t even qualify as a joke. His first choice for secretary of state (a black woman) already dropped out because of opposition from Republicans, and Republicans are also threatening to block his choice for defense secretary (a white male who used to be a Republican Senator) and treasury secretary (also a white guy). No, he cannot appoint whoever he wants.

As I said, there have been some complaints from Democrats - including Charlie Rangel, that brave Corrupt-American - but this is mostly driven by Republicans. And Democratic pundits, of course, are in no position to do anything while Republicans will have to affirm their commitment to diversity, which should be fun to watch.

The news. Seriously, look at who is complaining: yes, there’s Rangel and there’s a Latino coalition saying there should be at least three Latino cabinet members. And then there’s Mike Huckabee - who I think got the ball rolling on this one - and Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham and others.

  1. If they were selected because of their ability to do the job then it’s not a problem.

  2. No, I doubt Obama is a s8xist r8cist.

  3. No, hiring people because of their group identity sets a terrible racist precedent.

  4. These articles reveal more about the bias of the NY Times if anything.