What, no love for Rudy here?

This is coming from a blog written by: Dana, Adele, Ezra, Ann, Garrance, Kay, Robert, Scott and Matthew (with an occassional Kate and Paul thrown in). Sounds like the recruiting list for wonder bread.

So the Official List of black Tappists is:

??

Maybe I missed someone, but amusing nonetheless.

Look if you're gong to rightfully criticize the Mormon church for it's racist background, at least don't get it so wrong.

The LDS Church did have black members in 1978. Not many for obvious reasons, but membership in the church was not forbidden.

What the church did not allow is for black men to hold the priesthood. Any other male could hold it, just not black males.

And to this day the church allows no woman of any race to hold the priesthood.

So criticize away -- as Mormon raised in the church I think it is high time this stuff was brought out in the open. But please get it right when you do criticize.

... and why you're correcting the erroneous facts in your post, can you also please ask management for a preview button? Thanks.

The obvious possibility is that Mitt doesn't have a quota system. And, it's highly likely that the Dems do. And, there's a chance that, for instance, Obama specifically sought to hire someone who's black to fill a quota, and may have turned down someone who's, say, Hispanic to do so. Call the EEOC!

While we're making corrections, the chart is of senior staff, not all staff.

And yes, if the Prospect had any real interest in diversity it could certainly find a non-white contributor to TAPPED. In fact, if Dana cared about the issue at all, she herself could set aside, say 20 hours over the next couple weeks to find a few good non-white bloggers. It's not that hard.

So? If Hillary Clinton's policies turned out to be identitcal to Romney's what difference would her ostensibly diverse staff make to the rest of us?

So the Official List of black Tappists is:

??

Maybe I missed someone, but amusing nonetheless.

Posted by: Scott | November 28, 2007 1:24 PM

LOL! Excellent point Scott.

By Dana's logic, the absence of black, latino or asian Tappers means that the overall quality of their of work is somehow less than if such persons were on staff. One would think that the obvious answer to this problem is for Dana to resign so as to allow a member of these disadvantaged minorities to take his place and permit this enhanced quality to occur.

A key bit of information missing from the graph is the actual number of staffers. It makes a big difference if a candidate has a dozen staffers and 10 of them are family members. I'm guessing Romney has more, but are we talking hundreds here?

Anyone know those numbers?

Chichounsel-

Don't be an idiot.

First, TAPPED absolutely is worse because its contributors are all white. It's supposed to be a political blog with a broadly left perspective, and race is a huge part of American politics and left politics in particular, and it's an area where personal experience has a profound impact on people's perspectives. All else equal, TAPPED would be a better blog with non-white contributors.

Second, it's not like there's a fixed number of slots on the blog. Dana doesn't half to resign, she needs to devote a modest amount of time to seeking out good non-white bloggers. Who knows, maybe she even will.

I should add that if TAPPED insisted on a diverse stable of bloggers it would almsot certainly result in a more meritocratic hiring process. Dollars to donuts, at least half the TAPPED contributors knew someone on the Prospect staff socially before they were hired. A meritocracy this ain't.

(Mutatis mutandis the above all goes for presidential campaigns too, altho this is one area where the Dems perform fairly well.)

For those questioning Tapped's diversity, they do actually have a link at top right with contributors information on it including photos.

But again, a staff of about a dozen people isn't statistically likely to be very diverse. Not even if they were all picked at random.

"Dana doesn't half to resign, she needs to devote a modest amount of time to seeking out good non-white bloggers. Who knows, maybe she even will."

Nah, dollars to donuts says she'll have nothing left to say. She'll need the other 20 hours to figure that out, and you'll never hear from her again.

And that's how white people's liberalism happens.

A key bit of information missing from the graph is the actual number of staffers.

N is 63 for Clinton, 26 for Richardson, 14 for Obama, 20 for McCain, and 28 for Romney. This is as of July.

(I'm struck by the fact that none of the many bloggers who reproduced the graphic seem to have looked at the original article. It's subscribers-only but easy to find if you have access to Lexis-Nexis.)

But again, a staff of about a dozen people isn't statistically likely to be very diverse. Not even if they were all picked at random.

15 contributors listed. There's a less than 5 percent chance of a group of 16 random Americans being all white.

Great skewering of Dana here - we really deserve a response to these legitimate points.

"Given Mitt Romney's recent remark that the United States' small Muslim population doesn't "justify" having a Muslim in the presidential cabinet, I thought I'd [whip this out] ... Surprise, surprise! Romney is an old hand at surrounding himself with white people."

Could someone here who knows more than I explain what being a Muslim has to do with being non-white? I'm not sure I understand the relationship ... Isn't a Muslim simply a follower of Islam? Isn't it the epitome of stereotyping to imply that since Mitt has only whites on his senior staff that he has no Mulsims?

Since we're on the subject... does anyone ever get sick of hearing Scott Lemieux pontificate on abortion? And, how is it that he gets affirmative action? There *simply has to be* someone more knowledgeable out there...

If chosen randomly, assuming 75% of the population is white, the expected number of minorities on staff would be n*0.25, but the variance would be (about) n*.75*.25.

So Tapped (with 15) would be expected to have 3-4 minorities, but could easily have as few as 1 or as many as 7 without falling outside the variance.

Romney (with 28) would be expected to have 7, but could have as few as 2 or as many as 12. It looks like he has 2 according to the graph.

There have been some fair critiques made here, and some misunderstandings of my argument. I never intended to equate being Muslim with being non-white. Rather, my intention was to show that Romney's ridiculous comments about Muslim Americans are in line with an overall pattern of not valuing diversity in hiring, whether that is religious, ethnic, or racial diversity.

As to the question of whiteness at TAPPED, yes, we don't have any non-white regular bloggers right now, and we recognize it as a problem. We are always looking to diversify our writing talent, and the Prospect has a number of regular contributors of color who are not bloggers, but who write columns and reported pieces for the online and print editions of the magazine.

That said, the individual writers on this blog are not hiring managers.

the individual writers on this blog are not hiring managers.

Fair enough. But there's nothing stopping you from going to the hiring manager and saying, "here are talented young black/Latino/Arab/whatever writers X, Y and Z, how about inviting them to become contributors?"

And if seeking out potential non-white bloggers isn't worth, say, 20 hours of your time, then what's your beef with Romney?

"As to the question of whiteness at TAPPED, yes, we don't have any non-white regular bloggers right now, and we recognize it as a problem."

Just for my own attempt at trying to understand the liberals' thought process, can you explain to me why the lack of any non-white regular bloggers is a problem that you recognize?

If it is a problem, then the solution is quite obvious. Simply hire some non-white employees. Who cares if they are good or not. By your reasoning, their very presence, qualified or not, is a benefit to Tapped because it shows the value of diversity in hiring. Or did I miss something?

I had always find it amusing but now infuriating, that even with the evidence plain as day, in your face...that the obvious doesn't get stated with this chart. that Hillary clinton has the most diverse staff....etnicaly as well as by gender. And strangely that Barack Obama has a higher percentage of white staffers than she does.

But to me it just once again confirms the degree to which he is the mainstream, DLCish, cautious candidate.

And strangely that Barack Obama has a higher percentage of white staffers than she does.

So you're voting for the candidate who likes white people less? Is that supposed to be the enlightened view. If Obama had no whites at all would you actually consider him more diverse?

You're right about on thing, Clinton is the only candidate who demonstrably values diversity as and end in itself. But if her view is (like yours apparently) that the fewer whites you employ the more progressive you are, then she's lost my vote.

And if you want to find the DLC candidate, look at who the DLC supports. It ain't Obama.

Yeah, Chicounsel, you missed the whole shotting match, including my post above that was specifically addressed to you.

Look:

1. Race is a huge part of American politics. Any political organization that doesn't include people of different racial backgrounds is missing some important perspectives. This isn't a radical notion, it's a commonplace in corporate America. You want to reach the Hispanic market, you need some Latinos working on your ad campaign.

2. The alternative to diversity is not meritocracy. Here on planet earth, people get jobs through social networks and all kinds of personal characteristics. I'm pretty confident that every commenter on this thread who's ever been employed has, at some point or other, gotten a job via someone they knew. Both because of racism -- yes, Chicounsel, black folks still face discrimination in the US -- and simply because people's personal ties are with people like themselves, qualified minority applicants are less likely to be hired. (It's not just TAPPED that's all white.) Explicit diversity goals, by requiring employers to reach beyond the usual hiring pool, are likely to result in MORE qualified applicants.

I mean, reality check here. I worked for a while in a liberal non-profit where the receptionists and other front-desk staff were always young friends of someone on staff. It wasn't even explicit favoritism -- they just always heard about the jobs and knew exactly how to pitch themselves. When people complained that our organization made a big deal about racial inequities but had very few non-whites on staff, the administrative department had to cast a wider net to fill those jobs. And what do you know, you got people who actually took the job of receptionist seriously instead of aspiring writers and whatnot who just saw it as a short-term, post college paycheck.

You're right about on thing, Clinton is the only candidate who demonstrably values diversity as and end in itself. But if her view is (like yours apparently) that the fewer whites you employ the more progressive you are, then she's lost my vote.

Come on Jinchi, you're smarter than that. Nobody talks about diversity as an "end in itself", and you know it.

Kudos to Dana for addressing some of the concerns readers had with this post.

But Dana (yeah, but), if your "intention was to show that Romney's ridiculous comments about Muslim Americans are in line with an overall pattern of not valuing diversity in hiring, whether that is religious, ethnic, or racial diversity," why did you reprint a chart that says NOTHING about religion? (And next to nothing about ethnicity?) Let's see some actual evidence of this "overall tendency."

This chart is being used in an effort to smear Romney. The asinine quote of his was about followers of Islam; the chart is about racial diversity. It is unfair to use this chart to argue that Mitt's "ridiculous comments about Muslim Americans are in line with an overall pattern of not valuing diversity in hiring."

Wouldn't it be much more useful to look at the race, ethnicity, and religious affiliations of those he has hired as governor and businessman? I'm not saying you're wrong (to be frank - I don't think Mitt or most conservatives do value diversity - is that news to someone here?), but this chart doesn't support your argument one bit. In fact, it serves to stir up the emotions of the liberal equivalent to conservative Minute Men, wouldn't you agree? Haven't you condemned similar emotional appeals to xenophobes or religious bigots?

This chart does not support the points you made in your first post, and it does not support the argument you are now putting forth. (Retire it!) Better to have written, "I should not have used that chart." And leave it at that.

the liberal equivalent to conservative Minute Men

Right. Because being against racism is the equivalent of being a racist.

Come on Jinchi, you're smarter than that. Nobody talks about diversity as an "end in itself", and you know it.

Of course they do. We're talking about potential representation in a government body here. Think of arguments about the demographics of the court system, the Justice department, the president's cabinet, etc.

There are plenty who believe that we should strive for a wider range of voices in decision making. Some governments even enshrine that doctrine in law. Some people think a truly color and gender blind system works best, others think that simply perpetuates a system where one group make all the decisions for the rest.

This isn't even a criticism, its an observation. Hillary Clinton appears to believe that it specifically matters whether she hears from people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds. This is a direct contrast with Mitt Romney's comment that he doesn't need a Muslim to explain the views of the Islamic world to him.

Lemuel:

Dana tried to make a point about Mitt's commitment to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. But the chart spoke only to race. The net effect was that her post was an emotional appeal to anyone predisposed to believing that Romney is a racist. You appear to be an example of the danger of such arguments.