California Gov. Gavin Newsom will name Laphonza Butler, a Democratic strategist and adviser to Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign, to fill the vacant U.S.
In choosing Butler on Sunday, Newsom fulfilled his pledge to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became open.
I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.
I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.
Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state’s population before even considering their qualifications for the job.
Is it not conceivable that there are a number of well qualified black women?
If a race and gender is underrepresented in the Senate, then why wouldn’t it be a good thing to push a well qualified candidate that also represents underrepresented demographics?
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman.
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman.
That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.
The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.
Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.
They are definitely something, but they were not the main qualities that Newsom repeatedly stated that he was searching for.
Be explicit. What are you trying to say.
It should be very obvious what I am saying.
I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.
I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.
Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state’s population before even considering their qualifications for the job.
Is it not conceivable that there are a number of well qualified black women?
If a race and gender is underrepresented in the Senate, then why wouldn’t it be a good thing to push a well qualified candidate that also represents underrepresented demographics?
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman.
That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.
The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.
Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.