Should a white congressman be allowed into the Black Caucus?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

<<<<more>>>>

__________________________________

Cohen is the guy who replaced Harold Ford in his old Tennessee Congressional seat. The district is predominantly African-American and I guess the representative felt he could better serve his constituents by caucusing with the Black Caucus even though he himself is not African-American.

What do you guys think about this. I'm kinda torn because I understand and appreciate the history of the Black Caucus, which if I'm correct formed back in the late 60's as a way to work together in congress and promote civil rights. But then again why shouldn't someone who represents a district that is predominantly minorities even though he/she is not a minority be excluded?

What do you guys think?

at what point does membership define the group?

I know Emily's List is women only but they do support at least verbally those men who help promote their causes. I've been to 2 of their luncheons and I've seen Tom Daschle and Barack Obama speak at the events.

I think both sides have a valid argument to this

USED joining Emily's list as a campaign promise demanding full membership and in being denied access to the "inner sanctum" offered the M$M red meat to attack that group as feminazis? Would HE be someone whose discretion the other members would be inclined to trust? Just wondering. :shrug:

plans to get the media involved and attack the group as racists? I'm sure that will go over very well in his district. :sarcasm:

It was disrespectful of Rep. Cohen to use the CBC as a campaign tool. Failing to consider the ramafications of doing so indicates an appalling lack of sensitivity and discretion. He may not have "planned" the current firestorm but as a 4th generation Tennesseean his lack of foresight is absolutely stunning. His insensitivity has resulted in a lose/lose scenario for the CBC. Intended or not the damage is done.

Harold Ford Jr. spent a good bit of his campaign time (when he ran for re-election for that seat) talking about the good work he was doing in congress and with the CBC while in the House. The CBC is known to the people of that district, and they know that the CBC is looking out for them. If there's an organization that's looking out for the people someone represents, why would they NOT want to be a part of that organization? Which would benefit his constituents more, a representative who is a member of the CBC, or one who isn't? While I agree that his decision to make it part of his campaign is causing an issue here, and maybe wasn't the best way to go about it, I think his interest in joining is genuine. Certainly I can see how nobody wins when he publicly declares he wants to join and isn't accepted, but I'm not clear how anyone loses if they were to accept him as a member?

It's quite another to set up a win/win situatin for yourself in such a way that those with whom you wish to establish solidarity are subjected to a lose/lose.

"I'm not clear how anyone loses if they were to accept him as a member?"

THIS is the aspect of the dynamics of race and power that you do not as yet fully comprehend. It's tedious to explain to whites because #1 they don't really want to hear or accept the truth of "the other," #2 it takes a great deal of effort to disable the "denial button," #3 shutting up and JUST LISTENING is a foreign concept and #4 NOTHING in American society demands that they "get it!" It is my intent to be direct in this response.
Please do not take my general observations personally.

and I'm not taking anything personally, but I still do not understand how allowing him in hurts anyone. I simply don't understand how having a white member of the CBC, who's politics are in line with the other members, will in any way impede them from achieving their goals.

If they let him in, what happens when someone else with large black constituencies - Trent Lott or Jeff Sessions or Charlie Norwood, etc. - claims THEY should get in? The last thing the CBC needs is one of these guys in the room when strategies are discussed, opinions are expressed, decisions are made.

One of the points of the CBC is to provide a venue for black members of Congress to be together in an environment in which they aren't the minority, they aren't suspect, they don't have to consistently explain themselves, where everyone in the room has a basic bond of cultural connectdness. That doesn't mean that there aren't other arenas in which a different mix of people can also provide a value. But the CBC is a black organization, by choice.

Cohen has countless other groups he could join to make a difference. The fact that he's zeroed in on and trying to force his way into the one group for black members calls his motives into question, big time.

wouldn't be a problem. He could certainly join other groups, but I don't believe that there's any group that could do more for him and the people of his district than the CBC given the position that he is in. As for the precedent it sets, I'm not really sure as to how dangerous it is. Lott, Sessions, and Norwood all have numerous reasons why their voting history and goals are not in line with those of the CBC, and Lott and Sessions do not have a majority African-American constituency (I'm not sure about Norwood, I haven't been able to get demographics on his district). So while someone like them could try to join, it's not really a good comparison, and it wouldn't be difficult to provide any number of reasons other than race why these people should be denied entry.

As far as the CBC being a black organization by choice, and the environment of the CBC meetings, you bring up a valid point. In my opinion, though, the CBC would be better served to allow someone like Cohen to join than they would to allow in someone like J.C. Watts (who I believe was invited to join). Since I'm not a member and haven't been to the meetings, I have no idea how disruptive having a white member, even though he may be politically aligned with the group, would be, I only know about the work that they do. IMHO, Cohen and the CBC would both benefit from him having a voice at those meetings and being able to firsthand hear the voices of the others.

This particular member has ALREADY created a NASTY, unnecessary problem. You write of what THEY could do for HIM. Look what he's ALREADY done for THEM! By his actions he has already proven that there are IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS he DOES NOT GET. Excuse me for shouting, I'm just in awe at your refusal to process the current situation! :banghead:

"Since I'm not a member and haven't been to the meetings, I have no idea how disruptive having a white member, even though he may be politically aligned with the group, would be..."

Indeed, you don't. I do. Multiply the frustration I'm expressing to you times 10. ;-)

We ex-pats have a saying, "Don't go there with them." That means there are topics we scrupulously avoid with our fellow Americans who lack the experience of long-standing residency in Europe and who are monolingual. They don't get it, they can't get it and they won't get it. There are certain topics that are not worth the aggravation they regularly create. The same phrase is common currency in the black community.

Hey! Guess what??? NOW Tancredo is now calling for the abolition of ALL minority caucuses!!! Thanks, Steve for putting this on the front burner yet again. Newt is surely thrilled that the impetus is coming from a liberal Democrat. :eyes: :SIGH:

be less disruptive then Cohen in the meetings?

The current situation is a little bad PR, and while I will concede that Cohen actions have brought it upon them, it won't prevent the CBC from doing ANYTHING, and will blow over very quickly. It's not like he's the first white person to seek entry into the CBC, and he probably won't be the last. Tancredo can call for whatever the hell he wants, because nobody but Faux news is listening to his sorry ass.

Since your position seems to be that I don't get it, can't get it, won't get it, and you can't explain it, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion any further.

it eliminates the CBC as forum which guarantees African Americans the opportunity to discuss the issues that minorities face apart from the influence and input of people who do not share their experience as minorities in a racist society. That alone is a good enough reason to want the CBC to remain all black: those who are disproportionately affected by racism have a right to determine priorities and develop strategies for addressing those issues without always inviting input from those who are not as affected. That isn't to say that the CBC doesn't care what whites have to say or that they wouldn't be glad to have Cohen's support and cooperation for their goals, of course. But minorities are not obligated to invite white people into every conversation about race; conversely, white people, no matter how well-intentioned and how genuine in their support of civil rights, have no right to assume the right to participate in every conversation about race.

Aside from the need for a safe forum, there is another reason the CBC would prefer to invlude only black members, and that is that African American voices remain rare in our congress today. By uniting together to help develop strategies and priorities, the CBC increases their ability to advance their own agenda, because they speak, in a sense, as a collective voice of the black community within congress. That collective voice becomes diluted with Cohen in the mix. They are no longer a collective voice of black congressmen, including virtually all black members of the house, but rather are now the voice of a group that is interested in civil rights, containing both black and white members. There are already other groups like that, and they serve an important function as well.

There are other reasons as well, having to do with mentoring and with dealing with issues unique to the experience of minority congressmen, as well as the concern that more white congressmen would want to join, for various (and often selfish) reasons.

I don't know if you've seen the original thread about this in GD, but it's well worth reading if you want to know more. I believe that someone who remained unconvinced, but who had an open mind and was willing to challenge common assumptions, misconceptions, and knee-jerk reactions about issues like this would learn an awful lot from reading some of the posts on that thread.

You said it all and so beautifully - thank you!

people of color, regardless of the color, it is equally wrong for people of color to discriminate against people who are white. Rep. Cohen wanted to join the caucus in order to better support the interests of people he represents. There is nothing wrong or insensitive about that. To the contrary, he wanted to do the right thing. Caucuses are part of the Congress. They are not private clubs. They should follow the rules that all government sponsored groups should follow. They should not discriminate.

you have spewed. ThomCat has explained these issues clearly in GD. Perhaps reading through those threads will help you understand a bit better and guide you to ask rather than dictate.

since the new rep is representing a majority black district. Does the caucus exist for the needs, wants and desires of its members or for the benefit of black americans? His membership might be a benefit to his constituents and what's wrong with that?

even against Jake Ford (Harold Ford Jr.'s brother) who is clearly not an "unknown" in the district, then I think he probably speaks for his constituents. Clearly, this has nothing to do with his district or his constituents, though, since he's taking over for Harold Ford, who was a member. This also doesn't seem to have anything to do with his politics, either, since his positions seem in line with those of the caucus anyway. Whether it's right to do so or not (and I think they should let him in), it's hard to argue that there's any reason he's being excluded other than his skin color. This sounds like the sort of thing that repukes will have a field day with.

Does being in a caucus with others who shares their goals, challenges, life experiences, etc. help their constituents directly? Or, does it help their constituents because it makes them better legislators by giving them mentors/others who understand what it is like to be in their particular situation (e.g., an African American legislator in a largely white legislative body).

If it is mostly or entirely the former, then a white person representing a predominantly African-American district should be welcomed with open arms. If it is mostly or substantially the latter, then I understand the reluctance.

On the one hand, I can understand why a minority, of any stripe, would want groups that are exclusive to focus on minority issues. At the same time, I worry about how arbitrary it can get. This doesn't really pertain to Cohen, who I think at least kept his word, and will serve his constituents equally well whether a member of the CBC or not, but as folks are getting increasingly mixed, so to speak, who gets to decide who is white, who is black? Is it based on simple looks, or is it based on ancestry, etc.

people he represents - they can make sure he has input or let him know outcomes - since he represents blacks it would seem to be the right thing - but - having organized a group of women getting together at a work place and having the top guy get upset - it can be different and difficult since he really has no clue or could have any clue what it is like to be black and live in America

Do they have men in the womens groups? Both seem sort of silly for Congress but I guess that is another story. Do they have an old white mans group?

I couldn't resist

:spray:

Not many seem to be able to just once play on guts and say some thing that means some thing. Lets hope they will do some thing.

It really depends on the individual congressman. Ultimately the members of the caucus will decide that for themselves. But I think they are making a mistake in this case. It's just something to get the usual suspects riled up about.

As a white female, I think they can keep it as it's intended. Why does EVERYTHING have to get so controversial?? A Black Caucus IS a BLACK Caucus!! IMHO!

But when I opened it up and saw it was my dear Steve, I smiled. Sounds just like him.

And, you know what, I'd let him in if I were on the Black Caucus. Steve represents a predominately black district in Tennessee. He did so for years prior to his becoming a US Congressman as a state senator to our General Assembly in Tennessee, too.

I love Steve Cohen. He is the best! I wish he was my congressman!

It is not based upon the racial makeup of the members' districts - many of the CBC members represent predominantly white districts.

But I understand Cohen's feelings, too.

He simply wants to be kept abreast of issues pertaining to the people - the African-American community - who elected him.

to those issues. And, of course, there was no other option than setting the CBC up to achieve his goals...

Even if he's not in the right, he's trying to represent his people in the best way he thinks proper and all he gets is shit for it.

I'm sorry but that's shameful.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/209/209_beneath_the_spin_want_to_be_black_secours.html

Several years ago, at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban South Africa, there were hundreds of caucuses formed throughout the two weeks and anyone in attendance would be hard pressed to deny the power harnessed when those with common histories and experiences joined forces. It was palpable.

As the only non-black member of an NGO delegation, it was challenging not to resist and resent being excluded from caucuses where those who were ‘classified as white’ were not invited. But very quickly, it became evident that the role required for some of us was not one of leadership, but of forming alliances and learning how to become a trusted ally. The ultimate challenge was serving, rather than driving, the agenda. A novel concept for someone accustomed to steering the wheel.

Dr. Ray Winbush, Director of the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University in Baltimore admires Cohen for his public service and says: “Frankly, it is surprising and disappointing that Steve isn’t more sensitive, especially with his being Jewish. Of all people, he (Cohen) should understand the importance of ethnic caucuses where strategies can be formed. Creating allies and solidifying relationships in Washington with members of the CBC is more important and respectful than requiring membership.”

And so now it seems that someone at the Congressional Black Caucus will draw the short straw and have to take Mr. Cohen to lunch and gently ‘break it down’ for him and explain why perhaps it is inappropriate that he be admitted to the CBC and how many people of color might find his assertion and insistence offensive. Not a pleasant task when you consider that many of us liberal white folks don’t like being told we aren’t ‘allowed’ and don’t take kindly to exclusion.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cohen, requesting that he become a member of the Black Caucus only raises questions as to his ability to truly understand the needs of those he represents and what their struggles are. If he doesn’t grasp the value of the Congressional Black Caucus as a Black organization and instead allows his desire to be ‘the exception’ to override his good judgment, he may raise more than eyebrows on Capitol Hill.

Molly Secours is a writer/filmmaker/speaker and frequent co-host on “Behind The Headlines” and “FreeStyle” on 88.1 WFSK in Nashville. She can be reached at www.myspace.com/mollysecours or www.mollysecours.com.

:crazy: He's NOW added insult to injury. :crazy:

The congressional black caucus is willing to stand up and be counted, often ahead of the curve on important issues, and very active in congress. I agree with most everything I hear from them and I'd want to be a part of that. In addition, I could learn from them about some subtleties about race/culture that I'm sure that I have missed. Learning from their experiences would only make me a better and more compassionate public official.

At least not since JC Watts, that is. Besides, think about it. Is the caucus there to serve black citizens or to serve black members of Congress? Priorities, people... priorities.

predominant make-up (male white) and they didn't need a "caucus." and that is part of the reason the "black" caucus was formed--to help minority members legislate and fight together as a group when needed against the "majority"

caucus: "a faction within a legislative body that pursues its interests through the legislative process: the Women's Caucus; the Black Caucus." (dictionary.com)

Reminds me of a response I heard to the bull---- argument made that the NAACP is racist because there's no "National Association for the Advancement of White People."

"Yes, there is - it's called the U.S. Government."

I can appreciate why the CBC doesn't want the white congressman in their ranks just because of what the CBC represents.

However, I think it would be in the best interest of the CBC to align themselves with representatives in predominently African-American & Minority districts in order to best serve this population of people.

I think white congressman who wanted to join really had the best interests at heart for his predominantly african-american district. I think he can be a valuable asset with the CBC even if he is not an official member

seeing that his "first act of congress" was to put the CBC in a lose/lose situation. There's an elephant in the room and I ain't touchin' it.

Just imagine for a moment that his campaign promise was to organize a group of fresman congesscritters in similar circumstances who were dedicated to working closely with the CBC. And just imagine that HIS group grew to include many who share the goals of the CBC. Then imagine further that he's re-elected a few times after proving his effectiveness and creating solid ties with the CBC. Imagine the difference if he THEN made discrete inquiries, was invited to join AND welcomed with open arms...

If Mr. Cohen had a nearly a quarter of a century's experience in the Tennessee State Assembly representing a predominantly minority district, he'd at least have a track record, but since he just fell out of the sky, there's no way to know what his motivations are. :sarcasm:

The thing is, he's not being excluded because they don't trust him, and he's not being excluded because of his politics. While I certainly wouldn't argue that they have no right to exclude him, it's their group and they can set the membership rules as they see fit, I think it's very hard to make the argument that he's being excluded for any reason other than his skin color.

your lack of empathy, sensitivity or understanding. You're quite clear in your assertions that YOUR point of view is the only correct one. How are you privy to the level of trust he enjoys? If he had earned it before, he's CERTAINLY lost it now, having dropped a huge pile of mammouth feces on the living room carpet.

I would say that the election results show the level of trust that he enjoys, as he did win both the primary and the general election (including running against his predecessor's younger brother Jake Ford) decisively in his district. If his promise to seek entry into the CBC helped his campaign, then I imagine that the voters of his district were in support of his entry (otherwise, it wouldn't have helped), and are probably somewhat disappointed that he didn't get in. Do you believe he was denied entry for any reason other than the color of his skin?

I believe my remarks do show empathy for the people in his district and for a person that wants to do everything he can to help the people of his district, but yes, my remarks clearly show that I lack understanding, because I don't understand how preventing him from joining is benefiting anyone.

past and the work he did as a state senator.

Some of us here ARE privy to the level of trust he enjoys amongst his mostly black constituency. You CERTAINLY don't.

Oh - and they still love him there, regardless.

He's already worked for years and years to organize similar groups by representing a similiar district when he was a state senator.

The CBC should know this. Why don't they?

Who may DARE to disagree with YOU. The WHITE. The RIGHT.

Not true. The CBC works closely with many other caucuses and individual members on a variety of issues. In fact, they are one of the most active and inclusive bodies on the Hill. But that doesn't mean they have to let everyone join.

What happens when Trent Lott decides HE wants in because Mississippi has a whole heap of black folks? And since South Carolina has twice the black population as Illinois, is Barack Obama less eligible to be in the CBC than Lindsey Graham?

The Congressional Black Caucus is, by the choice of its members, for black Members of Congress, just as the Asian-Pacific caucus is for Asian-Pacific members, the Hispanic caucus is for Hispanic members, etc.

Cohen, in my view, is just trying to cause trouble. If he were really interested in advancing a valid cause, he would offer to partner with the Black Caucus on issues of concern to his constituents and not try to jam his way into membership against their wishes and then try to make a racial bias case out of it.

n/t :hi:

If some special conditions exist which, for one reason or another, would override their own standards, it would seem they'd know enough to invite him.

I'd trust them to do what's right for their own organization.

;-)

For years, the CBC has been under attack by Republicans because it is THE most effective Caucus in Congress and has made the majority very uncomfortable.

Ever since its founding, the CBC has been targeted for extinction by those in Congress who would just rather it go away.

For example, In 1994, when the Republican Revolution invaded, Newt Gingrich did everything he could to undercut, undermine and downright get rid of the CBC. He cut their funding, he prohibited them from having meetings on Capitol grounds, etc. But they hung in there and every time Newt adopted a new rule designed to shut them down, the CBC members found a way to work around it. Finally, Newt just gave up. At least for the time being.

This history probably explains why CBC members are so adamant about maintaining control over who gets in and are fighting to limit the Caucus to black members. They are also probably highly suspicious of this effort to "integrate" the Caucus, whether because they fear that Cohen, however well-intentioned he may be, could be a Trojan Horse, or simply because the feel strongly that it is up to them, not anyone on the outside, to determine who the Caucus should be run.

has seized this dust-up to call for the abolishment of ALL minority caucuses. Steve, you're a dimwit, a Schlmazel AND a Schlmiel!!!

He is NOT.

You don't know shit from shinola about him, do you?

He is the most decent person I've ever met in politics. THE MOST. And, as a former reporter, I've met tons.

Man - save the judgment for someone you know something about. Because, you obviously don't know Steve Cohen.

He thought it would be a good idea to better represent his district. He didn't know the Republican Noise Machine would try to turn this into something else. He really believes people are decent. Now, he's a smart fellow and will learn from this, but his motives were 100 percent pure.

to make discrete inquiries, or to garner the support of the CBC and explore options BEFORE putting THEM on the hot seat in public.

"He didn't know the Republican Noise Machine would try to turn this into something else."

The man is a 4th generation Tennesseean. If he was unable to consider the ramafications of his every step viv-a-vis his constituency, then he's lovable but STUPID. Welcome to the big time.

His win is historic and something I support and applaud. Forgive me for saying directly that in his zeal, he's been a bull in the china shop. White man's burden and all...

Like most black folks who have spent their lives maneuvering through very treacherous political waters - CBC members have excellent political and social antennae, know when and how to tread lightly, when and how to wield a big stick and understand and are masters at nuance, patience, timing, and strategy.

Cohen's ham-handed approach to this issue demonstrates to me that he'd be a tremendous liability to the CBC - the last thing they need is someone as tone-deaf as he is in their midst. Someone like him on the inside could do an amazing amount of damage to their efforts.

:freak::wow::freak::wow::freak::wow::freak::wow::freak::wow::freak:

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/NEWS0201/70125051

Thursday, 01/25/07

Cohen didn't try to join Congressional Black Caucus, aide says

By ERIK SCHELZIG
The Associated Press

Freshman U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen never seriously considered asking to join the Congressional Black Caucus, the Memphis Democrat's spokeswoman said today.

<snip>

Several black groups and candidates criticized Cohen for joking during the campaign that his voting record made him seem like a black woman and for saying he would ask to join the Congressional Black Caucus if elected.

"He never asked to join and was never denied access to the Black Caucus," said Cohen's spokeswoman Marilyn Dillihay. Cohen's statement that he would seek to join the caucus was an offhand response to a reporter's question during the campaign, Dillihay said. He thought better of it once he was elected, she said.

David Bositis, who analyzes black politics for the Joint Center for Economic Studies in Washington, called it a "misstep" for Cohen to say he would try to join the Black Caucus. The caucus has never allowed non-black members since its creation in the 1970s, Bositis said, and not all members represent majority black districts. The caucus does have an associate membership that permits non-blacks to join. "Maybe it was admirable for (Cohen) to want to join because he has similar legislative interests as the Congressional Black Caucus," Bositis said. "But he could have just applied to be an associate member."

There are 43 black members of Congress, all of whom are Democrats.


Tennessean.com

backpedal
tap tap tap
backpedal
tap tap tap
backpedal

Now, please, exit stage left, sir

Show's over

I posted this last night and got several interesting responses. My own belief is he should join; the NAACP takes White members, and white persons were heavily involved in the civil rights fights. I also know that on my university campus, Whites are allowed to (and do) join black organizations.

I guess the question is what is the purpose of the CBC? Is it to represent the views of African-American voters or African-American legislators? If it's the latter, than I understand why they rejected Cohen. If it's the former, however, I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to join.

of African Americans. They have decided that they want to do this through a cohesive group of black legislators. That's their call and it's really annoying, frankly, to listen to white folks try to dictate to them what the makeup of their organization should be or how they should go about advancing their mission.

The CBC has obviously determined that, in order to be as effective as possible while operating in the overwhelmingly white United States Congress, they must be a cohesive BLACK organization, not an integrated one. The CBC is an organization designed to enable black legislators advance the cause of black people. They have every right to decide who they want in it. There are countless other organizations that Cohen can join if he wants to help advance African American issues. The fact that he's making such a big deal of not being allowed to join this particular caucus tells me that he's really not interested in helping African Americans but is trying to make a political point.

Even if he represents a Black majority district, I don't think he should be admitted.

Many CBC members represent majority white districts.

If Cohen were really interested in working with the CBC, he'd just reach out and offer to work with them.

This gambit reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode in which Peter forced his way into Jan's "Sunflower Girls." Ridiculous showboating.

restricting their membership on the basis of race. (i think it would be strange to have a white guy in the black caucus.)

on the other hand, i also know that it would infuriate me if i knew there was a "white" caucus and they were restricting membership based on race (ie if maxine waters couldn't join if she wanted to).

and i know i think this way because of the way our country was segregated and whites had all the power (and still do for the most part). i also know that while i don't think men should "have to" be allowed to the woman's caucus, in a contradiction i don't think if there was a male caucus they should be allowed to discriminate against women.

total cognitive dissonance here

sorry.

A pregnant women's caucus restricts membership to those who are or have experienced pregnancy. A very popular, successful male midwife demands entry to the steering committee. The women say NO as they often discuss their interaction with the men in their lives and feel many would be made uncomfortable and less than forthcoming due to his presence (he knows their SOs). By default HIS case is offered up to prove the women in the caucus are feminazis determind to destroy the family structure.

At the end of the day people shouldn't be excluded based on race.

Look at the stated purpose of the CBC

http://www.cbcfinc.org/About/CBC/index.html

"Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation, and to achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services. "

"The vision of the founding members of the CBC to "promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens," continues to be a beacon and focal point for the legislative work and political activities of the Congressional Black Caucus today"

The organization wasn't founded on the basis of excluding others, but instead of helping African Americans and others of similar experience and situation .

It isn't and wasn't supposed to be about the color of the members skin, but the experience of those the organization is trying to help.

Since Cohen is representing and was elected by a district where the majority is African American, it is an absolute shame that they do not welcome him as a member with open arms and betrays the initial stated vision of the organization!

There are some current CBC members that represent districts that are not majority black. The organization is for black legislators, just like the Women's Caucus is for female legislators.

The organization, as I pointed out in its own mission statement, was not founded upon the idea that we get all African American representatives together to talk about their own personal issues... it was founded upon the concept of ADVANCING THE CAUSE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.

The organization isn't supposed to exist for the benefit of the people in it, but for the benefit of the people it represents. Understand the difference?

Excluding someone solely based on the color of their skin does a dissersive to the people the organization represents.

the CBC decided long ago, shortly after its founding, that official membership would be restricted to black members of congress.

The quest to improve conditions for minorities throughout society is well-served by groups which draw membership and support from all sorts of people from all races, who work together to address issues of racial inequity, etc. Certainly almost everyone would agree with such a statement.

However, some people have a difficult time understanding that the quest to improve conditions for minorities throughout society is also well-served by groups which provide those who have dealt first-hand with racism and its affects the opportunity to discuss--apart from the input and influence of those who do not have their experience--priorities and strategies for addressing those issues. Both of these types of organizations are useful.

No organization can be both, of course. There are other organizations that Cohen could and other white congresspeople could join, which employ the former strategy. The CBC employs the latter--that does not prevent them from serving their mission in any way, shape, or form.

Here is the false presumption

"No organization can be both, of course. "

Of course they can. In fact, if they ever really want to achieve anything, they better figure out how to have frank discussions in front of people who didn't share their experience.

They are, in fact, not serving their mission statement by excluding someone who represents a district which contains a majority of the very people they claim to protect.

I don't know what is more sickening, the fact that the CBC, an organization I generally support, would exclude someone based SOLELY on race, or the fact that "progressives" would line up and defend that.

It's hypocricy in its highest form.

They cannot be both. It is impossible to be both. They are mutually exclusive. Again, one type of organization (like, say, NAACP or the Rainbow Coalition) draws participation from across a variety of races. The other type restricts participation to African Americans, thus providing a forum for those who have the actual and direct experience of being subject to the racism of the society can formulate their priorities and strategies and responses. Both types are useful, even essential, in the historical struggle for civil rights. But I fail to see how one group can be both. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

In fact, if they ever really want to achieve anything, they better figure out how to have frank discussions in front of people who didn't share their experience.
That's not the issue. It's not about having frank discussions in front of people who don't share their experience. It's about the right to address their own experience, in one forum, without input from people who don't share their experience. Do you honestly think the CBC doesn't deal frankly with people who don't share their experience? Or even their goals?

I don't know what is more sickening, the fact that the CBC, an organization I generally support, would exclude someone based SOLELY on race, or the fact that "progressives" would line up and defend that.
I think it's pretty sickening that there are white people who think that blacks simply are not entitled to discuss amongst themselves issues which are unique to their own experience. I think it's pretty sickening that white people--including "progressives"--think that they have the right to participate in every discussion black people have about race.

It's absurdity in its highest form.

"But I fail to see how one group can be both. Perhaps you can enlighten me. "

Because those discussions can be had in front of people who haven't experienced it and SHOULD BE. One organization can have many different functions and many different branches or are you trying to say that the Rainbow Coalition doesn't have frank discussions about racism and formulate priorities, strategies and responses?? Of course they do. By definition, they cover both and prove your initial claim patently false.

"It's not about having frank discussions in front of people who don't share their experience. It's about the right to address their own experience, in one forum, without input from people who don't share their experience. Do you honestly think the CBC doesn't deal frankly with people who don't share their experience? Or even their goals? "

Okay, maybe someone forgot that these are elected representatives, elected to serve their constituents. As I have already posted, the CBC was formed under a very specific mission statement (http://www.cbcfinc.org/About/CBC/index.html).. none of that mission statement is served by demanding racial purity.

Now, onto the real absurdity here, " I think it's pretty sickening that white people--including "progressives"--think that they have the right to participate in every discussion black people have about race."

The inevitable, take the entire thing to an absurd conclusion. Did I mention above that these are public officials? Did it occur to you that they are drawing salary from tax money? Does it occur to you that they are supposed to be serving the law and the constitution in their public service?

No one on earth is suggesting that anyone has the right to be involved in "every discussion black people have about race". However, when public employees form an organization for the purpose of benefiting people (note the CBC wasn't formed just to benefit African Americans, but "others of similar experience and situation" (quote from their own mission statements), they better find a better reason to exclude someone than "race".

There are a bunch of valid reasons they may not want Cohen in the organization right now, but the color of his skin shouldn't be one of them.

an interracial organization and a black-only organization. Interracial organizations serve an important purpose in the civil rights movement. Organizations with only black members also serve an important purpose in the civil rights movement, because they give blacks an opportunity that they don't get in the interracial organizations--the opportunity to discuss issues related to their community without having to consider input from those who don't share their experience. Both types of organizations are important for civil rights movements, just as both types of organizations were essential in the post-war civil rights movement. But one organization cannot be both. It's a logical incongruity.

Because those discussions can be had in front of people who haven't experienced it and SHOULD BE.
Gosh. Okay:
a.) that they should be doesn't mean that they should ALWAYS be
b.) that they can be had in front of people who haven't experienced it doesn't mean that those who haven't experienced it have the right to participate in each of those discussions. (Incidentally, the CBC has an associate membership program, so non-white people can hear many of those discussions.)

One organization can have many different functions and many different branches or are you trying to say that the Rainbow Coalition doesn't have frank discussions about racism and formulate priorities, strategies and responses??
I never said they didn't. Frankly, I don't know how one could even get that impression from what I wrote. Of course interracial groups can have frank discussions. :shrug: I didn't say they couldn't.

By definition, they cover both and prove your initial claim patently false.
Um, no. My initial claim--that a group cannot be both invite non-blacks to participate and maintain exclusively black membership remains true.

The inevitable, take the entire thing to an absurd conclusion. Did I mention above that these are public officials? Did it occur to you that they are drawing salary from tax money? Does it occur to you that they are supposed to be serving the law and the constitution in their public service?
Yeah, I was aware that these are public officials. How is what they are doing preventing them from serving the law and the constititution? Are you saying that once an African American begins drawing their salary from tax money they give up the right to meet with other black people to discuss issues that face the black community, unless they are willing to invite white people to join the discussion? That's a weird assertion.

Incidentally, the CBC does not draw from public funds.

No one on earth is suggesting that anyone has the right to be involved in "every discussion black people have about race". However, when public employees form an organization for the purpose of benefiting people (note the CBC wasn't formed just to benefit African Americans, but "others of similar experience and situation" (quote from their own mission statements), they better find a better reason to exclude someone than "race".

I don't see why a public employee can't form an organization for whatever legal purpose they see fit and determine membership in whatever way they see fit. Being a public employee doesn't strip you of the right to free association, nor does it require submitting one's standards of associations to your approval.

And as for a better reason for excluding someone than "race." They aren't excluding Cohen because they don't like white people. Their reason is that they believe their mission is best served with an all-black body. You've already said that they're wrong in that regard, and that you know better than the CBC how they can best accomplish their mission. I find that assertion pretty unconvincing, and also think that it demonstrates exactly why African American congressmen might want a single forum where they can organize without having to worry about input from non-black people who think they know best how to address issues of race.

Your claim is that an organization can't serve both purposes, which has already been proven false.

"Incidentally, the CBC does not draw from public funds. "

I am not sure about this claim. I know there was a huge fight about this some years ago, as they received publiic money directly. However, I know they do operate on public grounds and under the auspice of their jobs which is paid for with tax payer money, making them a public organization.


The rest of your post seems to draw the same absurb conclucsions and refuses to distinguish between ALL TIME AND EVERYWHERE and a PUBLIC ORGANIZATION FORMED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE. You don't want to see that distinction because it undercuts your entire position.

As for you claiming that "you know better"... no, I think the constitution and the laws of our land know better and they say that exclusion based solely on race is not only wrong, but forbidden.

If they are not excluding him because of the color of his skin, let them come forward and say so and I will be the first to defend their decision.

However, keeping someone out of a public organization, existing on public time and ultimately with public funds (whether directly or indirectly), based solely on the color of their skin is disgusting, wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

Okay ...


Caucuses are not allowed to fund themselves with public money. I don't know what you're referring to with respect to a fight about whether they did, but I'd be willing to look at links if you have them.



Truthfully, I don't even understand what the first sentence means. I don't get why congress people wouldn't have the right to form or belong to an organization. Congressional rules clearly give them the right to form caucuses for shared interests, concerns, experiences, and causes.

Black leaders have the right to meet without white people around. I don't see why they would lose that right when they get into congress and start drawing a salary from tax funds.



First of all, you did claim you knew better. The members of the CBC feel that the organization's goals by maintaining the group as a site for intra-community discussion. You feel that they cannot meet their goals that way. That's pretty much arguing that you know better how to meet their goals.

Second, if you can show me the laws that the CBC is violating, more power to you. The constitution certainly doesn't say that exclusion based solely on race is wrong or illegal, and while we do have laws that make it illegal to discriminate in certain circumstances, it doesn't apply across the board.


They keep him out of the organization based on their belief that the goals of their organization are best served if they maintain their status as a collective black voice in congress. I don't know exactly how you're defining public organization, but they are not obligated to open their membership to all comers. There are literally hundreds of congressional membership organizations, all of which determine their membership based on how they feel they can best meet their goals.

Suppose a handful of African American congressmen have a standing appointment to meet in one of their offices every week to discuss possible civil rights legislations. Suppose a white congressman next door finds out about this standing appointment. Suppose the two congressmen tell him: "we feel we, as black congressmen in an overwhelmingly white legislative body, need this time to discuss this issue amongst ourselves, but thank you for your interest." Are you saying they would be violating the law? Are you saying they would be morally wrong?

"Caucuses are not allowed to fund themselves with public money. I don't know what you're referring to with respect to a fight about whether they did, but I'd be willing to look at links if you have them. "

I did a google search to try and find this, but could only find an article from the 1994 New York times on the subject, that I would have to pay to read. Here is the link and the summary of it

'Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, was elected chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday at a time when the caucus is threatened by a Republican plan to eliminate its public money. Mr. Payne, the first black Congressman elected from New Jersey, vowed to maintain the caucus, which was formed in 1971 to back legislation benefiting African-Americans." (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F14FC3F5C0C758DDDAB0994DC494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fC%2fCongressional%20Black%20Caucus)

The article clearly talks about its "public money". Unfortunately this is a long time ago and I don't remember the fight exactly, but I was in law school at the time taking a constitutional law class with Professor Winkfield Twyman and this subject came up for discussion, so I remember it.



"Truthfully, I don't even understand what the first sentence means. I don't get why congress people wouldn't have the right to form or belong to an organization. Congressional rules clearly give them the right to form caucuses for shared interests, concerns, experiences, and causes.
Black leaders have the right to meet without white people around. I don't see why they would lose that right when they get into congress and start drawing a salary from tax funds. "



Here we go again. I am talking about the difference between a PRIVATE meeting a PRIVATE club and a PUBLIC ORGANIZATION. What the first sentence meant is that you continually mix the two and try to claim that I am saying that African Americans can NEVER MEET without white people around, which isn't true. I am distinguishing between the PUBLIC ORGANIZATION known as the Congressional Black Caucus whose mission statement is about serving the constituents and a group of private people getting together to discuss issues on their own time. If people wish to form a PRIVATE LOBBY, that is fine, but meetings are held in the capitol, business is discussed in the capital, even their website was housed on the congressional servers.



"The constitution certainly doesn't say that exclusion based solely on race is wrong or illegal, and while we do have laws that make it illegal to discriminate in certain circumstances, it doesn't apply across the board. "


Here is some reading for you. http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/Website%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Moose%20Lodge%20v.%20Irvis.pdf In short, discrimination in clubs is only allowed if the club is entirely private. This club is not, as shown above.


"There are literally hundreds of congressional membership organizations, all of which determine their membership based on how they feel they can best meet their goals. "

Yes, but much like employment, you can not hire someone for any reason, so long as it isn't the WRONG reason. The color of their skin is and always has been, the WRONG reason.


"Suppose a handful of African American congressmen have a standing appointment to meet in one of their offices every week to discuss possible civil rights legislations. Suppose a white congressman next door finds out about this standing appointment. Suppose the two congressmen tell him: "we feel we, as black congressmen in an overwhelmingly white legislative body, need this time to discuss this issue amongst ourselves, but thank you for your interest." Are you saying they would be violating the law? Are you saying they would be morally wrong? "

Another false example, since this wouldn't be a PUBLIC ORGANIZATION, receiving PUBLIC BENEFITS and existing, whether directly or indirectly on PUBLIC MONEY.

This is a public organization that is supposedly discriminating against people on the basis of the color of their skin alone. There is no reasonable defense of this.

Regarding the '94 story, I don't recall the arrangement then, though I seem to remember that Newt made a push to eliminate the CBC, and it might have been at that point that rules have changed regarding public monies.

Here are the current house rules on caucuses:

* CMOs have no separate corporate or legal identity. A CMO is not an employing authority. The MRA may not directly support a CMO as an independent entity. A CMO may not be assigned separate office space.
* Neither CMOs nor individual Members may accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support the CMO. Members may use personal funds to support the CMO.
* A Member of a CMO, in support of the objectives of that CMO, may utilize employees (including shared employees) and official resources under the control of the Member to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives, but no employees may be appointed in the name of a CMO.

http://cha.house.gov/services/memberhandbook.htm#160


Okay, fair enough. Your argument is that the CBC is a public organization, and therefore must be open to all of any race. I think you're mistaken with respect to how you position the CBC, for reasons I'll elaborate on below.

But by way of explanation for my confusion, and what you have perceived as a deliberate attempt to conflate anytime/anywhere with public organization of public servants--In the comment I was responding to prior to this confusion, you were saying that their actions were wrong because they were public servants and were supposed to be serving our interests. At that stage, I perceived this point of contention as a moral objection, rather than a legal one. I was therefore attempting to distill where, exactly, you were saying the moral right to associate and converse with others disappeared for an elected representative. I wasn't trying to intentionally collapse the legal distinctions of public/private.



Okay, though I didn't read through the entire thing, but a few points ... this is an amicus brief, making an argument about the law. It isn't the law. The actual supreme court decision came down in favor of the appelant (the lodge), reversing the lower courts decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0163_ZO.html).

Whatever the ruling in the Moose Lodge case, I'm not sure that there are direct corrolations to how congressional membership organizations would be treated. For one thing, there are various ways in which the laws differ for congressmen as they carry out their duties, and I believe that in that space what the CBC does is legal. For another, I suspect that, were it not legal, Newt would have been successful in his attempts to get rid of the CBC (it might have been along these lines that the public funds issue arose). Finally, I think the CBC is different because, according to congressional rules, the as a CMO the CBC, unlike a private club, has no legal identity, and therefore wouldn't seem to fall under the legal restrictions of a public organizations, as you have claimed.

By way of explanation, we need only realize that no member of congress is legally obligated to work with any other member on any legislation. Nor is any member obligated to accept help from any other member while crafting on legislation or pursuing legislative interests. Nor is any member legally required to have a "good" reason for refusing to let someone else help him with his legislative agenda.

Likewise, two congressmen working together on legislation are not legally required to work with any other member who wants to. Nor do they have to provide justification. If Congressman Bigot and Representative Racist want to refuse the help of a black member who offers to help them craft a specific bill, that's their right, and the aggrieved member has no grounds to sue for discrimination--he hasn't been prevented from performing any official function, and he can still voice his opinion on the bill should it find its way to the floor.

Same goes for three congressmen or four congressmen or five congressmen. Ten congressmen who gather together to pursue a legislative objective are under no obligation to accept another member's help, even if he wants help. And they aren't required to justify it. It's their legislation and their priority, and even the anti-discrimination laws don't force them to let whoever wants to work on that bill.

That's all a CMO is. That's all the CBC is. A group of congressmen who have joined to pursue legislative issues. They have no obligation to let anyone else help them. They can refuse anybody's help and for any reason. They aren't preventing these other congressmen from engaging the debate. They aren't preventing others from supporting or opposing legislation. Legally, discrimination doesn't enter into it.

Morally, discrimination doesn't enter into it either, because they have a legitimate reason for wanting to empower African American congressmen to determine, for themselves, what issues and strategies are important for their community.

"In fact, if they ever really want to achieve anything, they better figure out how to have frank discussions in front of people who didn't share their experience."

Unbelievable.

You see the CBC has never "achieved" anything. File under: ;-)

If they allowed it, it could be positive. But there is also legitimate concern that many would join just to water down their message and their votes. So in general, they should select members, black or white, based upon whether the person would aid their cause and their caucus. It's their choice whom to induct.

Edit: changed "It" to "If"...typo.

...There's a women's caucus because Women were once (and still are) a minority. There's a Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus because both those groups are still large minorities in a largely white Congress. It's stupid to say that there's no white caucus when every caucus out there in American history was the unofficial White caucus!! It's like people who get mad at BET for being called Black Entertainment Television...and say there's no WET (white entertainment television) totally ignoring the fact that White people have been represented on TV since filmmaking was a profession. They also don't get mad at Lifetime, which is television for women...and numerous other channels that appeal to a niche group of people.

According to the mission statement of the CBC, it was not formed to make a clique of African Americans, it was formed to advance the cause of African Americans in society and give voice to those people who have been underrepresented.

I am glad you bring up BET, since that is an excellent example. BET is designed to be entertainment predominantly BY and FOR African Americans... However, Whites and other races DO ACTUALLY appear in and work on some of their programming.

So, back to the issue at hand. Since this particular member shares their interests in advancing the cause of African Americans and shares their views on topics, his skin color alone should NOT disqualify him, much like it doesn't disqualify those who work on and appear in BET programming.

"share their interests in advancing the cause of African Americans" and as his FIRST ACT OF CONGRESS delivers the CBC on a platter up to the Great White Sharks. A platter he set up BEFORE he was elected.

Great work, Bubala!

You've said that the CBC's mission is to advance the cause of minorities, not to exclude people based on their race or to "make a clique of African Americans."

The CBC feels that they can best meet that purpose by maintaining their status as a collective black voice in a legislative body heavily dominated by white men.

Yes, I am saying to stay true to their initial message and reason for being, they need to find something OTHER THAN race upon which to judge people.

If they decide that a particular person doesn't advance that goal, that is fine, but they better find a better reason than the color of their skin upon which to judge them, or else they have managed to quash their own message.

:shrug: I don't see that in their original mission statement. I also don't see why they can't continue to advance the cause of minority rights as an all-black organization.

I also think posts such as this demonstrate the legitimacy of their reasons for wanting to stay all-black. They want to stay all black because they feel like they need to have a forum which allows black people to decide the most important priorities and most effective strategies for dealing with the issues that effect black people.

Allowing white people would dilute that, since white people often don't think black people are able to determine, for themselves, the most important priorities and most effective strategies for dealing with the issues that effect black people.

As evidence, one need only look at the attitude of those non-blacks who essentially say to the CBC: "You're doing it wrong! That's not the way to address minority issues! You should listen to me! I know how to address minority issues! You address minority issues by letting white people in, so they can help you decide how to address minority issues. That's how you address minority issues. Not the way you've been going about it."

The CBC believes that the best way they can address minority issues is by providing a forum for African Americans to address these issues and establish objectives, and then working with other groups, of all races, in order to carry out their objectives.

...and others of similar experience and situation"

that part somehow didn't come through in your last post.

...and others of similar experience and situation"

Honestly, this is weird. Can a group of black people "positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation?" I think they can.

And contradicts the phony reasons given in defense of this position.

I shouldn't condemn the CBC for things some said on this board. It is wrong of me to assume that the CBC, an organization I respect, would embrace the reverse racism that some are endorsing...

As I have said, they have every right to reject anyone based on their belief that they don't share the views necessary to execute their mission statement. However, as a public organization, they should not practice the very racism they are sworn to defeat.

which is why they think it essential that the CBC remain a forum for black voices to discuss these issues amongst themselves.

You say it contradicts the phony reasons, but you still haven't shown how, except to imply that YOU know better than the CBC how they can best meet their mission.

I don't think this represents reverse racism at all. I don't think it's racist to say that black people know better than white people what it's like to deal with our society's racism. I don't think it's racist to ackowledge that there can be value in a forum that restricts participation to those with that particular expertise. It's not the only forum to discuss racial issues. It's not the only place where that discussion takes place. It's not the only way in which the members of CBC engage the issue. But it's a productive way.

...and others of similar experience and situation"

Whether they think it or not, they went out of their way to include OTHERS in their mission statement. Further, their mission statement has nothing to do with the "discussion of societies racism and who is best to engage in that discussion", which is the only arguement you actually have.

Putting the legal issues of a public organization discriminating based on race aside for a moment.

Exclusion on the basis of race alone is, no matter what type of face you try to put on it, racism, not reverse racism, but real, true, honest to god racism and as long as it is allowed to survive on one end, it will survive on the other, that's just the facts and reality and now I will go out on a limb... if members of the Congressional Black Caucus think they are advancing their cause by telling someone they have the wrong color skin to join, than I will be the first to say, "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG", because if they can take a hard core social liberal like me and get me annoyed, I can't imagine how people who really do have prejudice inside will react...

/RANT ON

Because here is the diffence, I hear something like this and think what idiotic person who is fighting on behalf of minorities would have the gaul to tell someone that they made a decision based solely on the color of someone's skin; however, someone else who doesn't see individuals, but lumps people into groups.. they will say, "look at THOSE PEOPLE BEING HYPOCRITES" and they will hold it against every African American they run into. Here is an unfortunate reality, MOST PEOPLE LUMP PEOPLE INTO GROUPS.

Thinking you know someone's thoughts, feelings, opinions, actions or anything based on ONLY the color of their skin is racism, period, end of story, its racism, its ugly and its wrong in any context.

/ RANT OFF

I'm done with this, because I am sick of reading people defending the indefensible.

membership.

Whether they think it or not, they went out of their way to include OTHERS in their mission statement. Further, their mission statement has nothing to do with the "discussion of societies racism and who is best to engage in that discussion", which is the only arguement you actually have.
The mission statement doesn't have anything to do with accepting white members, either. But you keep bringing that up, as if it proves your point.

I didn't say that their mission statement had anything to do with the discussion of societies racism and who is best to engage in that discussion. I'm not sure (a) why you put that phrase in quotes, or (b) why you claim that's the only argument I have, when I haven't really made that argument. I think it is very clear that the mission statement says nothing about either their membership or about discussions of racism and who is best to engage in that discussion.

More things I think we can both agree on: You clearly think that the CBC can best serve their mission by accepting white members. The CBC clearly thinks that they can best meet their mission by remaining all black.

Putting the legal issues of a public organization discriminating based on race aside for a moment.
Actually, I hope that this post might put those to rest permanently ;)


I just can't agree that all exclusion is created equal. Without african americans who ORGANIZED themselves apart from white society, the advances of the Civil Rights movement never would have come to pass. That the Civil Rights movement also invited white supporters doesn't negate that fact--as I said at the beginning, both African American organization and interracial organization were essential. The post-war Civil Rights movement would not have succeeded had it not been for the contributions of people outside the black community. But nor would it have succeeded without organizations that were exclusively black, such as (to site just one example, because I was talking about them earlier), the Women's Political Council, which was instrumental in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

In your rant, you say that "Thinking you know someone's thoughts, feelings, opinions, actions or anything based on ONLY the color of their skin is racism, period, end of story, its racism, its ugly and its wrong in any context." I'd like to point out that the CBC, in wanting to retain an exclusively black membership, is not claiming to know Cohen's thoughts, feelings, opinions, actions or anything else. They are not assuming, for instance, that Cohen wouldn't really support the CBC's mission wholeheartedly. They just believe that there should be a forum by which members of the African American community get to determine the priorities and strategies of the African American community.

Again, that doesn't mean they don't believe Cohen should never have any input into such issues or that his input wouldn't be important or valuable or sincere; rather, as has been the case throughout the struggle to address racism, those disproportionately affected need, deserve, and have a right to a space where they can hash these issues out amongst themselves, without having to address or incorporate the opinions of people who simply cannot (through no fault of their own) fully understand, no matter how good-hearted they may be. Having such a forum is empowering, particularly since such conversations usually take place in environments--like Congress--dominated by white voices. Thus empowered, the CBC can (working with other groups as well) better meet their mission.

THAT is how this is playing out. Cohen's USE of the CBC to get elected was in and of itself a betrayal. Please explain WHAT has he done so far to aid their cause and their caucus? Tancredo has now seized Cohen's "cause" to call for the abolition of ALL minority caucuses. Don't misunderstand me, I'm agreeing with you. It just seems that so many on this thread MISS THE FACT that he has ALREADY caused the CBC incalculable harm.

:eyes:

n/t

I can respect that there are some very sincere white politicians who would like to serve on the Black Caucus out of solidarity, but there would be too many others who would do it just to say "look I'm not racist" and then eventually you may have more whites on the black caucus than blacks. It is important to have a caucus that truly represents the interests of African Americans and gives them a voice which has been historically lacking. They can not allow people on who do not truly understand the challenges blacks face, and there is not a single white person who can truly understand what it is like to be black and live with racism.

the moment he USED them as a campaign tool, OBLIVIOUS to the ramafications.
Now someone PLEASE explain to me WHY he should be included in their most intimate discussions and why THEY should trust him. :eyes:

I don't think he meant he harm, he probably thought he was doing the right thing but his move was stupid. Extremely stupid. He should have thought of the implications, and he most certainly should have consulted the caucus before pledging to join.

with his assumptions, disrespect and insensitivity should be poured out on a plate for his own consumption.

And their mission statement states nothing about the organization being all African American... If they truly are interested in fulfilling their mission statement, they better start including people who are interested in their cause in on their most intimate discussions.

If they are only interested in having a clique that doesn't really advance a cause beyond doing to someone else what was done to them in the past, then they are doing a great job.

:eyes:

Yeah, heaven for fend someone should suggest that an organization founded on the basis of combating racism and making things better for minorities shouldn't use race as a sole criterea for membership.

:eyes:

may be TRUST?

"As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply"

If the latter part of the second statement is false, then someone from the CBC should come out against it, but the silence has been deafening.

If what you are saying is that the only way their can be trust is if their is racial purity, that doesn't sound a whole lot different than what the other has said and for which they have been properly condemned. The only way "trust" will ever be earned and maintained is by opening their arms and ranks to people who truly seek to further their cause.

Again, I have posted the mission statement of the CBC and a link to it and the circumstances and goals under which it was founded. Racial purity was not the reason.

If they believe that Cohen doesn't truly serve the interests of African Americans, fine, keep him out, state that they wish to see him in action and want to see him develop a track record with minorities before considering him for membership... that is the mission statement, but for God's sake, don't keep him out only because of the color of his skin alone.

He will have to earn trust seeing that his "first act of congress" was to put the CBC in a lose/lose situation. There's an elephant in the room and I ain't touchin' it.

Just imagine for a moment that his campaign promise was to organize a group of fresman congesscritters in similar circumstances who were dedicated to working closely with the CBC. And just imagine that HIS group grew to include many who share the goals of the CBC. Then imagine further that he's re-elected a few times after proving his effectiveness and creating solid ties with the CBC. Imagine the difference if he THEN made discrete inquiries, was invited to join AND welcomed with open arms...

Wrong. He suggested he would attempt to join the CBC on the campaign trail, before he joined congress.

Now, he has stated that he was told that he was not welcomed based solely on the color of his skin. This is not a lose/lose situation.

Is that false? If so, the CBC should say so and let it be known that he would, of course, be welcomed into their organization once he has established a solid track record showing consistency with their goals. This allows them to say that they are judging him based on his RECORD and not the color of his skin, which would be a big win for them, as it would break the stereotypes some people have of the organization.

Unfortunately, they have reinforced those stereotypes by not coming out against that statement and explaining that it was his lack of congressional experience on behalf of their cause that is keeping him out and not the color of his skin.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I feel it better to see the response and draw their own conclusions for why that is all you have left to say.

As someone said earlier and I feel it bears repeating (sorry to the original author, as I just copied the response, and forgot to write down your name to give credit.)

Since your position seems to be that I don't get it, can't get it, won't get it, and you can't explain it, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion any further.

As such, you get to the be the first placed in my ignore file, because I don't have the need to listen to those who believe that excluding someone from a public organization based on the color of their skin is acceptable.

for white male "outrage" on this board.

i doubt there are any congresspeople who don't have any black constituents.

And their mission statement states nothing about the organization being all African American
Nor does it say anything about being interracial :shrug:

But I guess you're more qualified to analyze their mission statement then they are.

"Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation"
http://www.cbcfinc.org/About/CBC/index.html

Note use of the phrase "African Americans and OTHERS"

including "others" in their mission doesn't equate to including others in their membership.

"Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation"

it says who they hope to benefit. Helping someone is not the same as inviting them to join a club.

The Black Caucus and That White Dude Over There

or...

The Mostly Black Caucus

He represents a heavily African American district.

Congress should be about the constituents, not the congresspeople themselves. If the CBC is looking for ways to forward the interests of all African Americans, then of course, it makes sense to include white, hispanic, members that serve districts with large numbers of black people.

People make a mistake in looking at this organization like a black college fraternity. As far as I know most colleges (especially public universities) do not allow race based groups to refuse to allow people outside of their race. I had a South Asian friend that joined the National Society of Black Engineers...and guess what? They accepted him. I don't know the extent of involvement with the organization, but his joining the group didn't make it any less of a great support organization for black engineering majors.

Plus, if Cohen is indeed a liberal, he's going to address black people's concerns better than Ford did anyways. Just because he was black, didn't mean he did a good job of helping poor and middle class people (oh yeah, I'm sure voting for bankruptcy "reform" really helped African Americans throughout his district and the nation).

It's not the representative it is those he represents. If his involvement in the CBC would benefit his constituents I believe that he should be invited in. The only reason I see for them not to admit Cohen is to take that away from him in his next bid for the seat and probably cost him incumbency.

The CBC works with many members of Congress, other organizations and many others, regardless of race. They just maintain an all-black membership.

The fact that so many people on this board think that all the CBC does is have little private meetings amongst themselves and unless they let Cohen into the room for those little private meetings, CBC members won't ever have any contact with or input from white folks shows a degree of ignorance here about what the CBC is and does that is makes the attempts by those betraying such ignorance to lecture the CBC members on how they should conduct their business laughable.

:think:

I haven't worked with African American groups, but I have been exposed to their world first hand through my fiance and there's just no way for anyone else to know what they've been through and what they continue to go through, or for that matter what any other ethnic group has gone through since modern history began. Without experiencing it or being exposed to it, I just can't find the words to explain it.


I will never accept the "reverse racism" argument, because there's just no way to put ourselves in their shoes. To put ourselves into a position of being yanked out of our homelands, sold into slavery, treated like animals.

Africans, peoples in South America, Hawaii, Indonesia, and Native Americans alike suddenly had their lands and homes taken away from them by force by Europeans or Americans at gunpoint, and were killed off if they resisted, then were told they no longer owned their own lands, and if they wanted them back (in Africa anyway) they'd have to buy them back using European currencies. Again, enforced at gunpoint. This went on for centuries, was condoned, and is today just accepted as history.

African Americans have only started getting their rights recognized for the last 40 years, yet any time now they try to keep something like the Black Caucus, it's reverse racism? After 2 Millenniums of murder, slavery, land stealing?

I just can't accept that reasoning. And this caucus specifically is called a Black Caucus and it's racism they don't want a white member? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

There's no way any of you are ever going to understand.

Help.
The very recent truth is being lost. Is anyone out there wikipedia savvy? (I'm not.)

In 2004, a grassroots, humanitarian effort kicks off for the simple reason of saving lives. Let's call them Group A. Group A exists because of human compassion.

In 2005, people get offended by Group A, and accuse them of abetting criminals. Let's call these pissed off people Group B. These people grow quickly and outnumber Group A tenfold. Group B outfunds Group A hundredfold. Group B exists because of human anger.

Group A is in dire need because it must defend itself in court for "abetting criminals". Group B gets support from our hero (/sarcasm) Tom Tancredo.
Group A is No More Deaths/No Mas Muertas (www.nomoredeaths.org)
Group B is the vile yet Tom's beloved Minuteman Project.
If anyone is more familiar with www.nomoredeaths.org, I think they need to be represented on wikipedia. In the same breath, people need to be reminded of The Minuteman Project's ugly birth. The truth is being lost.

...then of course he should.

The victim mentality in this thread is astounding.

There already is an organization for such members. It's called the United States Congress.

It's an organization for black legislators. Some in the CBC don't even represent majority black districts.

The CBC is certainly not assuming a victim mentality. They are acting to empower themselves.

Is there any representative in congress who doesn't have black constituents?