The NY Times reports that about a dozen advertising firms in New York "have promised to set numerical goals for increasing black representation on their creative and managerial staffs and to report on their progress each year." Meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, the chairwoman of NYC’s Human Rights Commission, Patricia Gatling, said, "In a city where African-Americans make up one-quarter of the population, with billions of dollars in purchase power, the lack of representation in the advertising industry is completely unacceptable."
Just a week ago the Survivor tv series was criticized for grouping their tribes by race. The show’s producers claimed it wasn’t a stunt but a response to the criticism that the show was "not ethnically diverse enough." So they decided to make their fake tribes, well, more like real tribes--imagine that!
"Representation" and "diversity" no longer reflect the outcome of the equal protection of everyone’s individual choices. Instead of treating each person as an individual, with unique qualities, a multi-faceted identity, and a will of his or her own, the proponents of modern-day diversity insist that justice cannot be served for racial minorities unless they are sprinkled in sufficient quantities throughout the American landscape. I for one prefer to make America "the land of the free and the home of the brave": namely, a people free from government recognition of their race, and brave enough to insist they be treated equally before the law. If only lawmakers had agreed with the request of freedmen after the Civil War to be treated without reference to race, we might have avoided much of the mess that government use of race has produced thus far.
Update: I forgot to add yet another sign of how bad we Americans misunderstand what it means to be an individual. Anyone catch the NY Times brief feature entitled Questions for Gloria Steinem? When asked, "Is Condoleezza Rice an ally of women?" Here’s what Steinem replied: "I wish someone would write an article called ’How Did Condoleezza Rice Get That Way?’ She’s so separate from the welfare of the majority of Americans and especially the female and African-American communities to which she belongs." Wow, someone ought to tell Secretary Rice that Gloria Steinem knows better than she does exactly who Rice is and to whom she belongs. Last I checked, slavery was abolished in 1865.
Ms. Steinem could have said, "Here are the top three policy issues involving women’s welfare and equal treatment in America, 1..2..3... and here’s how the President is on the wrong side of those issues, with the apparent acquiescence of Secretary Rice, who admittedly may have no say on these issues given her foreign-policy duties. But if Ms. Rice ever runs for elective office, she will have to explain where she stands on these issues, and explain her alliance with...blah, blah, blah..." Such a response, which have could have gone on to attack her part in Bush’s foreign policy decisions, would have been uncompromising, but at least civil.
But instead, Ms. Steinem decided to inform us that there is something obviously twisted about Condi’s heart, and the obviousness of it has to do with Rice’s Republicanism violating the assumptions of identity politics. If only one could reasonably hope that at least some prominent Democratic opinion and party leaders would vocally distance themselves from Ms. Steinem’s comments...but, alas.