What's so good about Diversity?
 

..

Obama is filling his cabinet with qualified individuals who bring a diversity of life experiences into his inner circle.

IMO, that is a good thing....unless you believe that some of his selections are not qualified and were selected solely on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 07 : 01 : 32-----
Should not life experiences be a factor? And arent those experiences defined in some measure by race and gender?

Different points of view and experience brings a richness of experience to the table.

Would you be happier if he had a cabinet full of black folks? That would represent a lack of diversity, no?

To my mind, as long as these people are qualified for their positions, the more diverse his advisers, the better (note: diversity in this case also includes hiring people that don't share his point of view... unlike the previous administration he is asking for dissenting voices).

..

I would encourage you to look deeper into the backgrounds of Obama's appointments...

...a first generation American and son of a Nicaraguan father and mother from Spain who spent his youth in Mexico, a daughter of black middle class family who grew up in segregated Washington DC....a Cuban who emigrated to the US as a child...a middle class white woman from suburbia with a public school education....a white guy from the NYC....a white guy who immigrated with his family from Israel......

Vastly different backgrounds and life experiences.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 08 : 05 : 52-----
But I am lost....first you complain about diversity, then you suggest they arent diverse.

Consider that for a minute. Consider that everyone has similar or the same experiences. Now what happens if a problem doesn't have a solution in this limited set of experiences? Then we're screwed. Diversity means a larger pool of ideas.
I got a 1556 (out of 1600) on my SAT score. I graduated early and went to a private university with several scholarships. Other than half of 4th grade at a private religious school, I had nothing but public education.

Supposedly private schools are better than public, but the truth is that there are a ton of absolutely fantastic public schools, and a ton of absolutely horrible private schools. And there are good and bad students at both.

BTW, Hillary went to public schools.

Indeed, my dad went to school with her :p

Like we have been for the last eight years, you mean? The rich white men have done GREAT so far, haven't they?

timalkin: I sense that you're touchy on the issue of race. What's that about?

..

Rice somehow ended up being a neocon (probably when she worked for Chevron), yes. There have been times when she's not totally towed the line, though. She took a big step away from being a neocon when, in 2006, she spoke out against Israel's asymmetrical response to Hezbollah. But, for the most part, she's been an old white man.

If you don't think Powell brought different ideas to the table, you may not have been paying attention. He was a nay-sayer up until he was finally forced to go before the UN. He's a good example of diversity being beneficial.

Gonzales was a yes-man.

If people truly wanted 'change', his diversity would be selecting people who weren't already part of the government machine.

..

It is because a huge majority of people in this country are superficial. skin color obviously denotes huge differences in culture, temperament, lifestyle, intelligence, wisdom, thinking patterns, and most of all ideas. by choosing people who aren't 'wealthy white men', we've instituted major change in our nation. :rolleyes:

is this thread about anything? what i saw in the article was NOT an explanation of how obama is assembling his cabinet, but only a commentary on its composition as viewed from one or two specific, narrow angles. there is superficiality here, but most of it is in the way the op was done, in the choice of material, in the way of misreading that material.

there are things which concern me about obama's appointments--but this thread touches and can touch on none of them.

Right, Other RB. I don't recall Obama making any big pledges about diversity in his administration. This is one editorial that happens to hit timalkin right on his sore spot, inevitably triggering a new thread here on TFP.

The main focus is to appoint qualified individuals. A diversity of backgrounds and experience is an added benefit. But you just wont accept that.

Instead you ignorantly claimed they were all from wealthy families, elite social status and benefited from the best private schools and therefore werent so diverse.

I would ask you again since you never answered.....who among Obama's announced (or rumored) appointments do you think is not qualified?

Bush also promoted diversity in his cabinet.

Here is the difference, using the Secretary of Labor as an example.

Bush appointed Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor, the first asian-american to serve in any cabinet. A bright woman by any measure, but absolutely NO experience in the field of labor relations. She is the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, so that probably earned some points with Republicans.

A leading candidate for Obama's Secretary of Labor is Mary Beth Maxwell, who would be the first openly gay member to serve in any cabinet. Her qualifications -- founding Executive Director of American Rights at Work, a national labor advocacy organization, and more than 15 years of experience in the field of labor relations.

See the difference?

Choices have been made for generations having little to do with "qualifications".
These choices are political in nature, like all such choices. I believe the bureaucracy
of Gov't, the Federal employees, have a far greater effect over the long term, especially those
whose jobs continue from administration to administration.

The choices being made by Obama are not really any different, at least they haven't shown it yet, from any other administration.

Once they've been around a while their actions will speak louder than appearances.
Appearances, and perception, go to the heart of politics. Perception is reality, at least until choices are made, policy enacted.

Until then this is all thunder and fury, signifying nothing.

As to timalkin's prediliction of bringing up race, well, it's been seen in many threads.
I give him/her credit for a consistent point of view, which I heartily disagree with. Still, that's what free speech is all about, no?
He/She has the right to an opinion, and he/she is studiously careful to not cross any particular line of decorum.
I've been goaded into anger in the past. Now I will try to be philosophical about it. I agree to totally, unequivocally, disagree with him/her.

My 0.02c worth......

I've not noticed anything particularly remarkable nor particularly alarming about any of Obama's appointments, thus far.

After the last 8 years I consider that a good thing.

What I sense here is a need for something to be outraged about. Post-election deflation. Anticlimax.

But this is what you get when a centrist moves into the White House - as much as folks wanted to believe that Obama was a 'raging liberal,' he's not. He's a moderate and he will be a moderate president.

I understand the desire now, after the plethora of material for outrage handed out by the Bush Administration, for the conservatives to have (at least) its fair share of the adrenaline rush that comes from watching in horror while the 'other side's' guy confirms your worst fears, but I really don't think you're going to get it from this administration.

And you want to know why I know this? Because this country would never elect a 'real' liberal president. At least you can take comfort in the fact that it will, indeed, elect a really 'real' conservative one.

..

exactly. if Obama wants to show diversity, try appointing me to a federal court. thats diversity.

Why is ethnic diversity good? Even today, people of different ethnicities can bring with them unique experiences that may not have been available to people of other ethnicities. I'll bet Barack Obama spending time in a Muslim community gives him a better perspective on our troubles in the Middle East than George W. who spent his childhood in Texas. It's not really the color of skin, but more where the person has come from.

In politics you're a combination of two things: your history and your abilities. A broad spectrum of backgrounds and abilities means more perspectives to draw from when making a decision.

You scored what on your SAT? How's that even possible?

I got a 1330. His score is possible, just extremely rare. Most folks aren't that balanced
when it comes to math/language skills.

Hmmm, I thought SAT scores were still only in multiples of 5. When did that change? It was definitely the case when I took it in the late 80's.

To address the OP, I see nothing that says that those nominated aren't qualified. On top of that, many of those that are nominated seem to be eminently qualified to me.

I used to be one of those people obsessed with good grades and test scores. I did a great deal of prep and I took several practice tests. If I took it today, I can't see myself getting above a 1400 (or the current equivalent, since the grading system changed some time after I graduated).

Jazz, I think the essay was worth 6, but frankly I can't remember for sure. Otherwise, I think the scores are base 10.

scores have changed considerably since the 80's, Jazz. I took mine in '93 and they've been normalized since then, as well.
and I just looked at the SAT website and it appears the test has again been changed since 2005.

I know from past real life discussions with people in my cohort that comparing scores from different versions is worse than pointless. my scores were about 200 pts lower than some of the other students but my percentile score was similar to some and higher than others. then I looked it up and our scores were roughly similar taking the changes in scoring into account.

I don't remember having an extra essay portion. we had a standardized verbal portion. if we did, I don't think it was scored separately like my GRE's were scored. oh well, that's my piece on this because the rest of the thread is uninteresting to me.

There was a change in 1994 and then another in 2002 or 2004 I believe.