What a race conscious bunch we are!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to end government-mandated discrimination based on attributes like race and sex, but in subsequent years since the Act’s passage, policies like race preferences slithered in.
Despite the plain language of the law, government agencies, including the one charged with carrying out the Act’s directives, practice discrimination in hiring based on race.
But who cares about those fussy details?
I’m waiting for some white lawmaker, preferably a liberal one, to take race-based congressional caucuses to task. Publicly. I doubt it’ll happened, but one can hope.
I was surprised to see a headline like “Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed.” Then I realized the story appeared in a new publication called The Politico, which covers Capitol Hill. The Politico isn’t what you’d call mainstream, but as a new creature on the block, its agenda is yet to be known. It probably leans more to the left than right, but one can hope.
The article is a brief write-up about white Congressman Stephen I. Cohen’s futile attempt to join the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). I haven’t done any research on the particulars, but I doubt very seriously that the CBC or any other race-focused, taxpayer-supported committee can exclude members based on the color of their skin. An excerpt of the article:
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be “a social faux pas” after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African- American.â€
…
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined…Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only 6 years old.“Half my Democratic constituents were African-American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty,” Stark said. “They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African-Americans.”
And therein lies the solution to the dilemma facing race-obsessed congressional caucuses. Instead of turning down white members for being white, turn down members of any race who don’t represent predominately or heavily black districts. Admit politicians like Cohen if they promise to spend most of their time and energy working on “black†issues, like…hmm…let me check the CBC’s site to find out what “black†issues are.
Later…OK! Under “Priorities,” the race-based group of taxpayer-supported folks are concerned about things like the academic achievement gap, “quality†health care for “every American,†employment, business development, “justice for all,†etc. What cool “black” issues!
Well, they have to use words like all and every to feign inclusiveness and downplay what they actually do, but as long as Cohen vows to work to improve the lot of “African Americans,†the CBC has no reason to refuse him membership. According to the article, Cohen’s district is 60 percent black, he’s received “high marks†for hiring blacks, and his chief of staff is black. Cohen clearly appreciates black folks!
Assessing potential members this way stinks, too, but it’s a lot cleaner, fairer, and less outrageous (and comical at the same time) than barring whites outright because they are white.
Ditto for the Hispanic and Asian Pacific American (good grief) Caucuses, too.
I guess I’ll have to wait in vain for some bold white politician to illustrate why politicians forming race-based, taxpayer-supported groups is a repugnant idea by creating and recruiting members for a Congressional White Heterosexual Protestant Caucus and refusing to allow blacks and homosexuals and non-Protestants and heathens to join.
Unless the blacks, homosexuals, non-Protestants, and heathens represent heavily white heterosexual Protestant districts and promise to work on white heterosexual Protestant “issues.” 
