Racism denigrates those of us that are white as well as those that are not. Sexism denigrates us men as well as women. Homophobia denigrates those of us that are straight as well as those who are gay. When we treat others unfairly because of some of their characteristics, we become mean spirited, small minded individuals. We need to address these issues not only because they are the right things to do, but because we are all better off if we treat our fellow wo/man equitably.
In trying to address this we face two major problems. Much of the discrimination is subconscious where all involved are not specifically discriminating. And in many cases, are indignant if the subject is brought up. Lets call this the "Empty Suit Syndrome." Everyone knows people who are terrible at the job they have, but look/speak/act like they are perfect for the job. Wayne Allard by any measure was useless as a Senator, but he came across as "Senatorial."
What happens with ESS is we make judgments that a given person is a good fit for a job - and those criteria, many of which are subconscious, can include that he is white. The shows on TV, the role models in politics, the fortune 100 CEOs, etc - all show the distinguished white male in the leadership role. If we don't think through why we find one person a good candidate and don't find another qualified, it may be that our vision of what central casting would send us is heavily influencing our decision.
We also face a second issue which brings us back to our title. In any given decision it is quite possible that the best candidates are all white males. Where you see if race & gender is effecting decisions is when you look at multiple decisions over time. If in all cases the finalists and selected candidate are all white males, then you can see that race and/or gender and/or sexual orientation and/or ... is impacting the decision.
Which brings us to the upcoming decision on who Governor Ritter will appoint to replace Senator Salazar. And in this case we do have a trend. In the recent selection for Secretary of State we had 3 finalists, all white & male. For the Senate appointment the conventional wisdom is that the 3 qualified finalists are 3 white males. With the deep bench we have of qualified women and minority candidates for both positions, this smells.
The criteria used to determine who is best qualified for the Senate seat appears designed to fit the 3 top candidates - as opposed to independently coming up with the criteria that matter and then selecting those that match that criteria. I'm not going to go into all of the criteria, but rather discuss one criteria that is over-emphasized and one that is important, but isn't even mentioned.
First let's look at "name recognition." This is listed by most as key to who is appointed. Yet it is not that critical. The Democratic party will be giving all federal attention in this state to two people - Betsy Markey and whoever is appointed to this seat. They will both be showered with every available opportunity to get their name out there attached to anything & everything good coming out of Washington. So name recognition today is a very minor issue. What is major is who can make best use of increasing their name recognition over the next 2 years with the advantage of a Senate seat. When looked at this way, virtually every politician in the state meets this criteria.
Second, lets look at the diversity of our leadership. Having someone up there who is "like me" makes a big difference. When one of my daughters had to do a biography in history she had no interest in FDR, but found Eleanor Roosevelt fascinating and wrote a great paper on her. People want someone who when they look at them, say that could be me. Whoppi Goldberg went into acting because she saw Lt. Uhura on Star Trek and saw that a black woman could have a role other than a maid or hooker. Most white males don't see this or understand it - because they have never been without role models like us. But to everyone else, this matters - a lot.
In politics, where we select those who leads us, we should have a diversity among our top leadership. To Colorado's credit, when we vote in an election, we do an outstanding job of selecting people from Ken Salazar to Cary Kennedy to Jared Polis who are role models for all of us. But when it comes to appointments, we appear to be stuck in the past.
Governor Ritter, please look very carefully and dispassionately at what criteria should matter, and how much each should matter, and base your selection on that. You also need to tell us what those criteria are and why you selected them. Because if we end up with every statewide position except treasurer held by a white male, a lot of the citizens of this state will be left wondering if they will always be found just a bit short in the requirements for any office.
Because if you appoint Ed Perlmutter, John Hickenlooper, or Andrew Romanoff merely because they are white & male - you are disrespecting them, and all of us.
